Roberto Aspiazu, Vice President of the Energy Chamber of Ecuador (CEDE), explains his position for No in the public consultation on the halt of oil extraction in block 43 ITT – which will be held on August 20 together with the presidential elections – and highlights the economic problems that will cause the country to suddenly be without a significant portion of the revenue from the oil production that is fully operational in Yasuní. It is also warned that there will be requests from contractors and that Peru could use Ecuadorian oil, as it would have an oil operation in front of Block 43.

As a chamber, they failed to register for the campaign, but how will their participation be then?

We are active on social networks. As a Chamber, we could not register, because we did not have the minimum institutional age, which is two years. However, we are in contact with the Amigo movement and the Amaru group, who are qualified (by the National Electoral Council) to campaign for no. The latter, a group that brings together indigenous people and settlers from the Amazon, with whom Mi met to discuss the problem and have common strategic guidelines.

What message do they want to spread?

My thinking on this topic is that with this consultation they suddenly threw an issue on the table that has not been on the national agenda for ten years. It must be remembered that the Yasuní initiative failed ten years ago when it was discussed, it was proposed to collect about 3.5 billion dollars from the international community to leave the crude oil in the field, but only 13 million dollars was obtained. As a consequence, the YASunidos collective submitted a request for consultation, which was unsuccessful, due to circumstances known to us. Now, ten years later, we are forced to discuss it, but under different circumstances. This is because the block is already under development, based on international regulations, appropriate care for the environment, with an environmental permit that has very high standards. For this reason, it strikes me that the Constitutional Court approves a question from ten years ago that does not reflect the reality of what is happening in ITT. The question itself is unrealistic, because it asks whether you agree to leave oil underground, when that product is already on the surface. Makes no sense.

Why did the Court not take into account the present moment, what is the reason?

I was very critical of the position taken by the Court. Unfortunately, there are judges who have been overly concerned with this issue in the past. Moreover, in the saved vote of the judges, it was claimed that the popular consultation was not aware of the commitments made since 2014. The Assembly had already ordered that the field be developed through Petroecuador, that is, it has the express authorization of the legislature.

What would be the economic cost to the country if 57,000 barrels of ITT crude oil were not exploited?

This is the only new field that Petroecuador has, and it represents the ability to increase production at this time when there are problems with the oil balance. For the first time in 50 years, we are in the red, that is, imports are more expensive than exports. According to the Minister of Energy and Mining Fernando Santos Alvite, in the first half of 2023 we had a bad balance sheet result, connected to the import of 72% of the fuel we consume. But the balance problem would get worse if we stopped producing 57,000 barrels. Minister Santos explained to us that tests were done this week on a new well that could generate 25,000 barrels per day, which means that this field has the potential to grow and double current levels to reach a stable production of 500,000 barrels.

You also talked about the possible lawsuits from the contractor companies, explain to us what this is about?

You have signed contracts with service providers, with 51 service companies hospitality industry, logistics, drillers, among others, who signed contracts for $1.171 million. Termination of the contract due to the departure of the company presents potential claims for damages. In addition, $1.9 billion was invested in the area, partly with debt contracted by Petroecuador. It is an investment equivalent to the subway in Quito and must be paid for and amortized by what the field produces, in theory. But this is an additional potential liability. Another economic fact is that there is silver in deposit assets for some $16,000 million and $27,000 million with a production horizon of ten years.

There was talk of the danger that Peru could extract oil if we didn’t. Is that possible?

The Peruvians are exploding, they have at least four oil blocks and they are exploding in front of block 43. So there is talk of a possible sorbet effect. It’s that if we stop exploding, the Peruvians might because they’re stuck.

But can you control it from happening?

It’s hard to control, but it’s real. In front of the place that environmentalists say is heaven on earth, the Peruvians have already made concessions and are exploiting oil on the other side of block 43. And before I forget, when they started developing the field in 2014, they discovered that the area had already intervened because there was a secondary forest. At that time, the loggers had already crossed over from Peru. Where there is this type of human intervention there are no uncontacted tribes.

There are academics and experts who talk about 200 and 400 million dollars as to how much the cessation of production means for the country. What is the number you manage?

57,500 barrels are produced. The figure confirmed by the Energy and Petroleum Workers Association was recently released and is $1.231 million. These are the figures confirmed by the Ministry of Finance and Petroecuador. The other figures they deal with are not technical, they are arguments of interest. The attitude of the communities in the sector is also important, as they see that oil has brought prosperity, drinking water, health and progress to this area, at least in the sector where they live. There is no doubt that block 43 is Orellana’s main source of life.

How do you see the position of the population, how do people understand the problem?

What worries me the most is that we are heading towards uninformed consultations with the wrong question. In addition, there are candidates who do not pay due attention to it or prefer not to pay due attention to it because it is a controversial issue. And they should take note because there was just a $1.1 billion decrease in tax revenue in the first half of the year. If we have a similar scenario in the second semester, we are playing with fire. Furthermore, if the yes vote wins, we have to see how the decision will be implemented, because there will be a social protest from the communities themselves if the company does not leave. There would be social conflict if Yes won. Of course, we encourage the victory of No. (AND)