Petrobras and Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) are offering sharply different readings of exploration near the mouth of the Amazon: one sees a tightly regulated research operation, the other a project whose safeguards remain incomplete.

The company says activity at the FZA-M-59 block remains exploratory rather than commercial production. It argues that its studies have found no direct social or environmental effects on Indigenous lands or nearby communities, and says it has complied with licensing requirements. “The activity in block FZA-M-59 is in the exploratory research phase, and the studies carried out have not identified direct socio-environmental impacts on communities or Indigenous lands,” Petrobras said.¹

Petrobras also says it consulted widely despite maintaining that prior consultation was not formally required for this licensing process. It cites more than 80 meetings and public hearings across 22 municipalities in Amapá and Pará. In response to concerns about aircraft noise around Oiapoque, the company says it worked with airspace authorities to revise routes and raise flight altitudes; later meetings with Indigenous leaders reportedly found a significant decline in perceived noise.¹

For Petrobras, the stakes extend beyond the Morpho well, about 175 kilometres off Amapá in ultradeep water. Following the reported discovery of good-quality oil, the company views the wider Equatorial Margin as crucial to maintaining Brazilian oil and gas output as existing reserves decline.²

The MPF, however, is seeking suspension of the licence authorizing further drilling, including wells known as Manga and Crotalus. Prosecutors say 17 Pará municipalities may be affected and point to complaints from fishers, quilombola communities and Indigenous residents about fish moving away, damaged nets and risks associated with support-vessel traffic.²

Their requested conditions differ fundamentally from Petrobras’s emphasis on existing studies: prior consultation with coastal traditional communities, fishing-specific economic-impact studies, a compensation plan and a reassessment of the area potentially affected. The dispute therefore turns less on whether exploration has already caused proven harm than on whether potential harm has been adequately assessed before the project grows.¹