Belo Monte Dam

Design

The Belo Monte Dam (AHE Belo Monte) is a complex of three dams, numerous dykes and a series of canals in order to supply two different power stations with water. The Pimental Dam (3°27′33″S 51°57′31″W / 3.45917°S 51.95861°W) on the Xingu would be 36 metres (118 ft) tall; 6,248 metres (20,499 ft) long and have a structural volume of 4,768,000 cubic metres (168,400,000 ft³). It would create the Calha Do Xingu Reservoir which would have a normal capacity of 2,069,000,000 cubic metres (1,677,000 acre⋅ft) and surface area of 333 square kilometres (129 sq mi). The dam would support a power station and its spillway would serve as the complex's principal spillway with 17 floodgates and a 47,400 cubic metres per second (1,673,915 cu ft/s) maximum discharge. The dam's reservoir would also divert water into two 12 km (7 mi) long canals. These canals would supply water to the Dos Canais Reservoir, which is created within the "Big Bend" by the main dam, Belo Monte (3°06′44″S 51°48′56″W / 3.11222°S 51.81556°W), a series of 28 dykes around the reservoir's perimeter and the Bela Vista Dam (3°19′46″S 51°47′27″W / 3.32944°S 51.79083°W) which lies on the Dos Canais Reservoir's eastern perimeter. The Belo Monte Dam would support the main power station in the complex. The power station was to have twenty vertical Francis turbines listed at 550 MW (max 560 MW). Supplying each turbine with water is a 113-metre-long (371 ft), 11.2 metres (37 ft) diameter penstock, affording an average of 89.3 metres (293 ft) of hydraulic head. The Pimental Dam's power station was to have seven Kaplan bulb turbines, each rated at 25.9 MW and with 13.1 metres (43 ft) of hydraulic head. Later the unit count was decreased by using more powerful units (see next section).

The Belo Monte Dam would be 90 metres (300 ft) tall and 3,545 metres (11,631 ft) long, with a structural volume (embankments included) of 25,356,000 cubic metres (895,400,000 ft³); while the Bella Vista would be 33 metres (108 ft) high and 351 metres (1,152 ft) long, with a structural volume of 239,500 cubic metres (8,460,000 ft³). The Dos Canais Reservoir would have a normal capacity of 1,889,000,000 cubic metres (1,531,000 acre⋅ft), a normal surface area of 108 square kilometres (42 sq mi) and a normal elevation area of 97 metres (318 ft) above sea level. The Bela Vista Dam which serves as the complex's secondary spillway would have a maximum discharge capacity of 14,600 cubic metres per second (520,000 cu ft/s).

Design flaw

Shortly before the planned installation of the dam's last (18th) turbine in November 2019, it was revealed that catastrophic failure of the dam was possible due to exposure of an unprotected area of the dam wall to wave action in the then prevailing low water level. In an 11 October 2019 Norte Energia report, the company's CEO requested more water from an intermediate reservoir to add to the dangerously low 95.2 meter water level.

Power generation and distribution

The planned capacity of Belo Monte is listed at 11,233 MW. It is composed of the main Belo Monte Dam, and its turbine house with an installed capacity of 11,000 MW. The Pimental Dam which also includes a turbine house would have an installed capacity of 233.1 MW, containing 38.85 MW bulb turbines. The generation facility is planned to have 18 Francis turbines with a capacity of 611.11 MW each.

In February 2011, Norte Energía signed contracts with:

• IMPSA worth $450 million to design and install by the fall of 2015 four Francis turbine generation units to provide 2,500 MW of power.
• Andritz AG to provide three Francis turbines and the six bulb turbines, and the 14 excitation systems for the main power house and additional equipment for the Pimental power house.
• Alstom worth $682.3 million to provide 7 Francis turbines, and 14 gas insulated substations for the facility.

Capacity

Walter Coronado Antunes, the former Secretary of the Environment of the state of São Paulo, and ex-President of the state water and sanitation utility Sabesp, has said that the Belo Monte Dam Complex would be one of the least efficient hydro-power projects in the history of Brazil, producing only 10% of its 11,233 MW nameplate capacity between July and October (1,123 MW, and an average of only 4,419 MW throughout the year, or a 39% capacity factor). According to the president of Brazil's Energy Research Company (EPE), 39% is "just a little below" Brazil's average of 55%. Normally, the capacity factor of hydroelectric power plants is between 30% and 80%, while wind power is typically between 20% and 40%. According to a study by Eletrobras, even when at reduced capacities, Belo Monte would still have the capacity to supply the entire state of Para with electricity.

Availability

Critics claim that the project would only make financial sense if the Brazilian government builds additional dam reservoirs upstream to guarantee a year-round flow of water, thus increasing the availability of generation. Supporters of the project point out that the seasonal minimum flow of the Xingu river occurs at a time when other Brazilian hydro plants are well supplied, so that no additional dams would have to be built. Reportedly, Brazil's National Council for Power Policies approved a resolution, previously sanctioned by then president Lula, that only one hydroelectric dam would be built on the Xingu. With one dam, critics do not see a cost-to-benefit ratio advantage and question the government's decision to construct only one.

Additional upstream dams would directly or indirectly affect 25,000 indigenous people in the entire Xingu basin. Of particular note is the Altamira (Babaquara) Dam, which would flood an additional 6,140 square kilometres (2,370 sq mi) of reservoir, according to its original design.

Developer

The project is developed by Norte Energia. The consortium is controlled by the state-owned power company Eletrobras, which directly (15%) and through its subsidiaries Eletronorte (19.98%) and CHESF (15%) controls a 49.98% stake in the consortium.

In July 2010, the federal holding company Eletrobras stated that there were 18 partners and reported their adjusted share in the project:

• Eletronorte (subsidiary of Eletrobras) – 19.98%
• Eletrobras, state-owned company – 15%
• CHESF (subsidiary of Eletrobras) – 15%
• Bolzano Participacoes investments fund – 10%
• Gaia Energia e Participações (Bertin Group) – 9%
• Caixa Fi Cevics investments fund – 5%
• Construction firm OAS – 2.51%
• Queiroz Galvão, construction company – 2.51%
• Funcef pension fund – 2.5%
• Galvão Engenharia, construction company – 1.25%
• Contern Construções, construction company – 1.25%
• Cetenco Engenharia, construction company – 1.25%
• Mendes Junior, construction company – 1.25%
• Serveng-Civilsan, construction company – 1.25%
• J Malucelli, construction company – 1%
• Sinobras – 1%
• J Malucelli Energia, construction company – 0.25%
• SEPCO1, Siemens

The Norte Energia consortium construction companies were reported to have originally held a 40% share.

In April 2012 it was announced that a $146 million contract was signed between Norte Energia S.A. and a consortium consisting of ARCADIS logos (a subsidiary of ARCADIS) holding a 35% share, and Themag, Concremat, and ENGECORPS, who will provide their engineering services to the project.

Economics

The dam complex is expected to cost upwards of $16 billion and the transmission lines $2.5 billion. The project is being developed by the state-owned power company Eletronorte, and would be funded largely by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). The project will also include substantial amounts of funding from Brazilian pension funds Petros, Previ, and Funcef. Private investors interested in the project include mining giants Alcoa and Vale (to power new mines nearby like the proposed Belo Sun gold mine), construction conglomerates Andrade Gutierrez, Votorantim, Grupo OAS, Queiroz Galvão, Odebrecht and Camargo Corrêa, and energy companies GDF Suez and Neoenergia.

In 2006, Conservation Strategy Fund (CSF) analyzed different cost-benefit scenarios for Belo Monte as an energy project, excluding environmental costs. Initial benefits appeared marginal. When simulating energy benefits using a modeling system it became obvious that Belo Monte would require additional upstream dams to provide water storage for dry season generation. CSF concluded that Belo Monte would not be sustainable without the proposed Altamira (Babaquara) dam which would have a reservoir more than 10 times the size of Belo Monte's, flood 30 times the area submerged by Belo Monte, indigenous territories of the Araweté/Igarapé Ipixuna, Koatinemo, Arara, Kararaô, and Cachoeira Seca do Irirí natives.

Due to the project's lack of economic viability and lack of interest from private investors, the government has had to rely on pension funds and lines of credit from BNDES that draw from the Workers' Assistance Fund, oriented towards paying the public debt, to finance the project; up to one-third of the project's official cost would be financed by incentives using public money.

Alternatives

WWF-Brazil released a report in 2007 stating that Brazil could cut its expected demand for electricity by 40% by 2020 by investing in energy efficiency. The power saved would be equivalent to 14 Belo Monte hydroelectric plants and would result in national electricity savings of up to R$33 billion (US$19 billion).

Ex-director of ANEEL Afonso Henriques Moreira Santos stated that large dams such as Belo Monte were not necessary to meet the government's goal of 6% growth per year. Rather, he argued that Brazil could grow through increasing its installed capacity in wind power, currently only at 400 MW.

However, a study by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, published in June 2011, criticised some of these alternative suggestions and defended the Belo Monte dam project. They state that compared to the estimated costs of alternative energies, the Belo Monte dam is cheaper both in economic and in socio-environmental costs.

Environmental effects

The project is strongly criticized by indigenous people and numerous environmental organizations in Brazil plus organizations and individuals around the world.

Belo Monte's 668 square kilometres (258 sq mi) of reservoir will flood 400 square kilometres (150 sq mi) of forest, about 0.01% of the Amazon forest. Though argued to be a relatively small area for a dam's energy output, this output cannot be fully obtained without the construction of other dams planned within the dam complex. The expected area of reservoir for the Belo Monte dam and the necessary Altamira dam together will exceed 6500 km² of rainforest.

The environmental impact assessment written by Eletrobras, Odebrecht, Camargo Corrêa, and Andrade Gutierrez listed the following possible adverse effects

• The loss of vegetation and natural spaces, with changes in fauna and flora;
• Changes in the quality and path of the water supply, and fish migration routes;
• Temporary disruption of the water supply in the Xingu riverbed for 7 months;

Incomplete environmental assessment

In February 2010, Brazilian environmental agency IBAMA granted an environmental license for the construction of the dam despite uproar from within the agency about incomplete information in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) written by Eletrobras, Odebrecht, Camargo Corrêa, and Andrade Gutierrez. Previously in October 2009, a panel composed of independent experts and specialists from Brazilian universities and research institutes issued a report on the EIA, finding "various omissions and methodological inconsistencies in the EIA..." Among the problems cited within the EIA were the project's uncertain cost, deforestation, generation capacity, greenhouse gas emissions and in particular the omission of consideration for those affected by the river being mostly diverted in the 100 km (62 mi) long "Big Bend" (Volta Grande).

Two senior officials at IBAMA, Leozildo Tabajara da Silva Benjamin and Sebastião Custódio Pires, resigned their posts in 2009 citing high-level political pressure to approve the project. In January 2011, IBAMA president Abelardo Azevedo also resigned his post. The previous president Roberto Messias had also stepped down, citing in April 2010 that it was because of pressure from both the government and environmental organizations.

140 organizations and movements from Brazil and across the globe decried the decision-making process in granting the environmental license for the dams in a letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2010.

Loss of biodiversity

The fish fauna of the Xingu river is extremely rich with an estimated 600 fish species and with a high degree of endemism. The area either dried out or drowned by the dam spans the entire known world distribution of a number of species, e.g. the zebra pleco (Hypancistrus zebra), the sunshine pleco (Scobinancistrus aureatus), the slender dwarf pike cichlid (Teleocichla centisquama), the killifish Anablepsoides xinguensis and Spectrolebias reticulatus, and the Xingu dart-poison frog (Allobates crombiei). An independent expert review of the costs of the dam concluded that the proposed flow through the Volta Grande meant the river "will not be capable of maintaining species diversity", risking "extinction of hundreds of species".

Greenhouse gas budget

The National Amazon Research Institute (INPA) calculated that during its first 10 years, the Belo Monte-Babaquara dam complex would emit 11.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and an additional 0.783 million metric tons of CO
₂ equivalent would be generated during construction and connection to the national energy grid. This independent study estimates greenhouse gas emissions of an amount that would require 41 years of optimal energy production from the Belo Monte Dam complex (including the now aborted Altamira Dam) in order to reach environmental sustainability over fossil fuel energy.

Dams in Brazil emit high amounts of methane, due to the lush jungle covered by waters each year as the basin fills. Carbon is trapped by foliage, which then decays anaerobically with help from methanogens, converting the carbon to methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As a result, carbon emissions are emitted from the dam each year it is in operation. A 1990 study of the Curuá-Una Dam, also in Brazil, found that it pollutes 3.5 times more in carbon dioxide equivalent than an oil power plant generating an equal amount of electricity would; not in the form of the CO₂ atmospheric pollution associated with fossil fuel burning, but as the more dangerous methane emissions. Furthermore, the forest will be cleared before flooding of the area, so the CO₂ and methane emissions calculated for the flooding of the forested area will be significantly undercut. In addition, a study on the Brazilian Tucuruí dam showed that the actual greenhouse gas emissions were a factor ten higher than its official calculations showed, and this dam is no exception; it is feared that the Belo Monte Dam calculations are also deliberately undercutting reality and that the flooding of its reservoir will create a similar situation. If the dam builders cleared the forest beforehand, they would remove the organic matter from the reservoir floor and the dam would produce less methane. However, in the case of Tucuruí, only the economically necessary forest was cut (10%, near the opening to the spillway) and the rest was left intact to be flooded by the reservoir. The contractors had sold the logging rights to the flooded area, but found the plot unviable in the short amount of time they had allocated before the area was set to be flooded. This forest has been decaying under the water through methanogenesis and producing large amounts of greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, the energy generated by the dam for the next 50 years, at an average of 4419 MW, is 1.14 bboe (billion barrels of oil equivalent). This is approximately 9% of the proven oil reserves of Brazil (12.6 bbl), or 2% of the total oil reserves of Russia (60 bbl), or 5.5% of the proven oil reserves of the U.S. (21 bbl).

Environmental impacts on Indigenous communities

Beyond its quantitative ecological footprint, the Belo Monte Dam has been linked to larger socio-environmental impacts on communities along the Xingu River. Scholars report that large-scale infrastructure projects in Brazil frequently reflect patterns of internal colonialism, which is described as "a structure of social relations based on domination and exploitation among heterogeneous, distinct groups" within a country. Hydropower growth has been viewed as reinforcing uneven power dynamics, in which economic and political centres take value from outer regions while local communities incur environmental and social consequences.

Field investigations and local accounts illustrate how changed water flows affect aquatic biodiversity and river-dependent livelihoods. Biologists and traditional fishermen noticed the loss or movement of several fish species during the dam's operation in 2016, resulting in a larger ecological deterioration. These developments have resulted in decreased catches, greater fuel costs, and worse water quality in riverbank areas. Indigenous leaders and advocates have emphasized that fishing and hunting, which are vital economic and cultural activities, have been interrupted, jeopardizing both livelihood and cultural continuity.

The dam's effects on the Xingu Basin's Indigenous peoples go beyond material losses. The river serves over 25,000 people from 18 ethnic groups, with many reliant on periodic floods and fish migrations for survival. Reduced water levels have impacted transportation and affected traditional commerce and food supplies. The Xingu River, which translates as "house of God," is also spiritually significant, and its alteration has been described as a spiritual shift within Indigenous worldviews.

Social effects

Although strongly criticized by indigenous leaders, the president of Brazil's EPE claims they have popular support for the dam. On 20 April 2010 Folha de Sao Paulo poll showed 52% in favor of the dam. The dam would displace over 20,000 people, mainly from the municipalities of Altamira and Vitória do Xingu. Two river diversion canals 500 metres (1,600 ft) wide by 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) long were to be excavated. The canals would divert water from the main dam to the power plant. Belo Monte was projected to flood a total area of 668 square kilometres (258 sq mi). Of the total, 400 square kilometres (150 sq mi) of flooded area was forested land. The river diversion canals would reduce river flow by 80% in the area known as the Volta Grande ("Big Bend"), where the territories of the indigenous Juruna and Arara people, as well as those of sixteen other ethnic groups are located. While these tribes will not be directly impacted by reservoir flooding, and therefore will not be relocated, they may suffer involuntary displacement, as the river diversion negatively affects their fisheries, groundwater, ability to transport on the river and stagnant pools of water offer an environment for water-borne diseases, an issue that is criticized for not being addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Among the 20,000 to be directly displaced by reservoir flooding, resettlement programs have been identified by the government as necessary for mitigation. Norte Energia have failed to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from the Juruna and Arara indigenous tribes to be impacted by Belo Monte. The project would also attract an estimated 100,000 migrants to the area. An estimated 18,700 direct jobs would be created, with an additional 25,000 indirect jobs to accommodate the surge in population. However, only a fraction of the direct jobs will stay available after the project's completion, which critics have argued to spell economic disaster rather than economic prosperity.

The influx of immigrants and construction workers has also led to increased social tension between groups. Indigenous groups report attacks and harassment, and in several occasions the destruction of property and the death of indigenous persons as a result from constructing and (illegal) logging activities. External researchers indicate that the majority of the Belo Monte dam's energy output will be relegated towards the aluminium industry, and will not benefit the people living in the area. However, Norte Energia released a clarification note stating their concern with the socioeconomic development of the area, including the promise to invest R$3.700 billion (1,300 million GBP) into various issues.

IBAMA report

The IBAMA's environmental impact assessment has listed the following possible impacts:

• The generation of expectations towards the future of the local population and indigenous people;
• An increase in population and uncontrolled land occupation;
• An increase in the needs of services and goods, as well as job demand;
• A loss of housing and economic activities due to the transfer of population;
• Improvements on the accessibility of the region;
• Changes in the landscape, caused by the installation of support and main structures for the construction of the dam;
• Damage to the archaeological estates in the area;
• Permanent flooding of shelters in Gravura Assurini;

However, a clarification was released by the Brazilian authorities, in which it was deemed that the assured social and economic benefits, considered for the environmental redesign and the region's infrastructural developments, would outweigh the expected environmental damage. Since the beginning of the project many environmental and human rights organizations have been protesting against the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. On 14 August 2012 the Brazil Federal Court halted the construction of the Belo Monte Dam on the basis that the government's authorization of the dam was unconstitutional. The government didn't hold constitutionally required meetings with indigenous communities affected by the dam before granting permission in 2005 to start with the construction. This is against the Brazilian law and international human rights. However, Norte Energía, the company assigned with the construction of the Belo Monte Dam, has the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Human rights concerns

The attitude and treatment of the Brazilian government towards the affected indigenous groups is strongly criticised internationally. The UN Human Rights Council has published statements denouncing Brazil's careless construction methods, and the International Labour Organization (ILO) likewise pointed out that the Brazilian state was in violation of ILO conventions (particularly the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 No 169) – although mechanisms for international enforcement are lacking, and it would require a Brazilian court to apply the binding principles of the convention, which Brazil has ratified. Indigenous groups have questioned the government's actions over these events, but their situation remains ignored by the authorities, as shown with the May 2011 Xingu Mission report of the CDDPH (Conselho de Defesa dos Direitos da Pessoa Humana), of which several sections regarding accusations of human right violations were excluded by the Special Secretary for Human Rights, Maria do Rosário Nunes.