Brazil’s federal government has announced a historic $23 billion settlement with mining companies Vale (NYSE: VALE) and BHP (NYSE: BHP), marking a significant development in the ongoing legal and environmental battle over the 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The settlement seeks to compensate for the wide-ranging devastation caused by the collapse of the Fundão dam, which spilled a colossal amount of toxic mining waste into the Doce River, causing widespread damage across several states and killing 19 people.
The company behind the dam, Samarco, a joint venture between Brazilian mining giant Vale and Anglo-Australian BHP, agreed to a payment plan spread over 20 years to address the disaster’s human, environmental, and infrastructure impacts. The disaster has been described as the worst environmental catastrophe in Brazil’s history.
Under the terms of the agreement, Samarco will pay 132 billion reais (approximately $23 billion), spread across two decades. This figure will contribute to a wide range of reparations for damages, including funds for over 300,000 victims. However, this number does not account for everyone affected by the tragedy, and a separate legal battle continues in the United Kingdom, where victims are seeking additional reparations.
The settlement follows nearly nine years of litigation and public outcry, spurred by the catastrophic collapse that released 13 million cubic meters of iron ore tailings. The waste traveled over 420 miles, poisoning the Doce River, devastating marine life, and leaving entire communities in ruins.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spoke on the settlement at a ceremony in Brasília, stating: “We are fixing a disaster that could have been avoided, but wasn’t.” He pointed to the mining companies’ negligence, accusing them of prioritizing profits over safety.
Lula’s remarks captured the anger of many in Brazil, particularly in the affected states of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo, where communities continue to grapple with the disaster’s long-term effects.
Samarco, in a statement released after the agreement, acknowledged the gravity of the collapse. Rodrigo Vilela, Samarco’s president, described the event as a “watershed moment” in the company’s history.
“The agreement signed today reinforces Samarco and its shareholders’ commitment to people, communities, and the environment, ensuring the continuation of full and definitive repair and compensation for the damages,” Vilela said.
While the settlement marks a significant step forward, critics argue that it may not go far enough. Pogust Goodhead, the law firm representing plaintiffs in the London case, contends that the Brazilian settlement does not fully account for the losses endured by victims.
“The amounts defined are far from covering the profound losses suffered by the victims, who continue to fight for justice and full reparations,” the firm said in a statement.
For many victims, the financial compensation is a mixed blessing. While the payments offer some relief, they cannot undo the damage done to their communities and lives. Cristiano Sales, a 42-year-old former resident of Bento Rodrigues, one of the hardest-hit villages, spoke about the emotional toll.
“Money can’t pay for what we’ve been through here,” he said. “We take the money because it’s our right. But to say that 100,000 or even 200,000 or 300,000 could bring back the life we had — I don’t think any amount of money can do that.”
Sales, like many others, has been involved in multiple lawsuits seeking reparations. While the settlement funds new housing and monthly installments for fishermen and farmers—totaling 95,000 reais ($17,000) over four years—many residents continue to seek justice through other legal avenues.
The case is viewed by many as a critical test of how multinational companies can be held accountable for environmental disasters that span national borders. It has also prompted concerns about jurisdictional clashes, particularly after Brazil’s Chief Justice, Luís Roberto Barroso, intervened to push for a settlement within Brazil. He emphasized the importance of resolving the matter domestically, telling Lula, “There is a case abroad, and it will be very damaging to the Brazilian courts if this matter is resolved outside the country.”
The U.K. lawsuit, representing more than 620,000 claimants, seeks an additional £36 billion (approximately $47 billion) in damages from BHP. The lawsuit was filed in the British courts because, at the time of the disaster, BHP had one of its main legal entities based in London.
BHP has consistently defended its position, stating that the U.K. lawsuit is unnecessary and duplicative, given the reparations already underway in Brazil. The company reiterated this stance on October 19, stating it will continue to defend itself against the lawsuit, though it acknowledges the complexities of the ongoing legal proceedings.
The settlement signals a hard-fought victory for victims seeking compensation, but as Pogust Goodhead’s statement suggests, there is still a long way to go.
“After nine years of negligence, the mining companies have finally decided to react to the pressure from public opinion and the trial in England, which began last Monday,” the law firm said.
Information for this story was found via AP News and the sources and companies mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to the organizations discussed. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
