Issue No 7 May - June 2015Price: 10 Euros

ener

gyw

orld

No

7 -

May

- J

une

2015

www.energyworldmag.com

The Magazine for Info & Analysis on Energy Policies

CAN THE

BLACK SEABECOME THE SAVIOUR OF SE EUROPE ?

ROMANIA’S ROLE IN SE EUROPE’S GAS PIPELINES GAME

MULTIDIMENSIONAL ENERGY POLICY FROM GREECE

TURKEY’S PATH TOWARDS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

MORE HOPE THAN ACTION IN BULGARIAN GAS POLICY

THE BLACK SEA CAN BECOME THE NORTH SEA OF SE EUROPE

THE BLACK SEA MEANS INDEPENDENCE FOR ROMANIA

Code: 210062

Publisher Apostolos Komnos

Publishing Assistant Dragos Zaharia

Deputy Editor Emilia Damian

Edition Advisor George Pavlopoulos

Editors Emilia Damian Ada Gavrilescu Penelope Mitroulia Nikolay Jekov Stevan Veljovic Vladimir Spasic Kostas Voutsadakis George Pavlopoulos Ian Becker Yiannis PispirigosContributors to this issue Kostadin Sirleshtov Veton Qoku Radu Dudau Marc Beacom Pavlin Stoyanoff Loredana Mihailescu

Design A.L.L. Designers www.alldesigners.eu

Art Director Anastasia Komnou Email: anastasiakomnou@gmail.com

Commercial Director Apostolos Komnos Email: komnos@gmail.com

Administration Chrysa Drakopoulou E: info@energyworldmag.com

Subscriptions Romania: +40 21 3110455 Greece: +30 210 7240510 Bulgaria: +359 24 175279

energyworld Magazine is published bi-monthly by All Media Designers S.R.L. Sos. Nicolae Titulescu nr.3, Bloc A1, ap.62, Sector 1, CP 011131, Bucuresti

www.energyworldmag.com

Energyworld magazine. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be transmitted or reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

The Best Source for Energy News

The english edition for SE Europe & Eastern MediterraneanIssue Nr 7May - June 2015

ISSUE PRICE 10 Euros

ROMANIA BucharestAll Media Designers S.R.L. Dragos ZahariaMobile: +40 766 667 733Email: info@allmediadesigners.com

BULGARIA SofiaALEANA Commercial & Media Services Ltd Julia Paleva Mobile: +359 89 7617777 Email: julia.paleva@trimpublications.com

GREECE AthensTRIM S.A. Sofia Andritsopoulou Mobile: +30 6932 40 40 40E: andritsopoulou@trimpublications.com

ENERGYWORLD PUBLISHING NETWORK

Partners

2

ContentsED

ITOR

IAL

THE

GAS

PIP

ELIN

ES, T

HE

COLD

WAR

AN

D TH

E BL

ACK

SEA

REG

ION

ROM

ANIA

’S R

OLE

IN S

E EU

ROPE

’S G

AS P

IPEL

INES

GAM

E

MU

LTID

IMEN

SIO

NAL

EN

ERG

Y PO

LICY

FRO

M G

REEC

E

TURK

EY’S

PAT

H T

OW

ARD

S EN

ERG

Y IN

DEP

END

ENCE

MO

RE H

OPE

TH

AN A

CTIO

N IN

BU

LGAR

IAN

GAS

PO

LICY

THE

BLAC

K SE

A M

EAN

S IN

DEP

END

ENCE

FO

R RO

MAN

IA

THE

BLAC

K SE

A CA

N B

ECO

ME

THE

NO

RTH

SEA

OF

SE E

URO

PE

FULL

SPE

AD A

HEA

D W

ITH

TH

E “V

ERTI

CAL

GAS

CO

RRID

OR”

THE

IRAN

FAC

TOR

IN T

HE

GLO

BAL

OIL

MAR

KET

THE

EAST

RING

, A N

EW G

AS P

IPEL

INE

FROM

WES

TERN

TO

SE E

URO

PE

EXPE

NSI

VE G

AS IS

UN

BEAR

ABLE

FO

R TH

E G

REEK

ECO

NO

MY

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

3

DRI

VIN

G O

N C

NG

: GRE

ECE

HAS

ITS

OW

N S

UCC

ESS

STO

RY...

A SI

NG

LE E

URO

PEAN

EN

ERG

Y SY

STEM

MIN

D TH

E (T

ARIF

F) G

AP IN

BU

LGAR

IA

END

OF

THE

ERA

OF

LOW

ELE

CTRI

CITY

PRI

CES

IN S

ERBI

A

BRIT

ISH

INTE

REST

FO

R RO

MAN

IAN

EN

ERG

Y M

ARKE

T

ENER

GY,

IMPO

RTAN

T SO

URC

E O

F G

ROW

TH F

OR

ALBA

NIA

ENER

GY

UN

ION

– A

GU

ARAN

TEE

FOR

A LA

STIN

G E

U

NEW

TRA

DIN

G P

LATF

ORM

S FO

R EL

ECTR

ICIT

Y IN

RO

MAN

IA

THE

UPRA

TING

OF

UNIT

S 5

& 6

OF

THE

KOZL

ODUY

NPP

THE

LARG

EST

WIN

D FA

RMS

IN T

HE

WO

RLD

ENER

GY D

IREC

TORY

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

4

01THE BLACK SEA, MYTH AND REALITY

EditorialBy the publisher

Governments and politicians across Southeastern Europe (as in every corner on this planet…) seem to believe that the “golden key” that will resolve their problems lies in a secret place, somewhere in between the oil and gas deposits lying in their countries’ soil. In many cases, they do not hesitate to bank on this huge energy health, declaring the plague of poverty and debt defeated.

One way or another, this was the case in Cyprus, the same is happening in Greece, the situation is similar in Albania and other countries of the Adriatic – and now, the party is ready to begin in the Black Sea region. Therefore, let us set the question straight: Can the Black Sea become the savior of SE Europe? And if

so, how long will it take until the newly discovered gas and oil begin to flow in the pipelines, at the same time filling the treasuries with dollars and euros?

If we are to be honest – and we are – we should face reality and make the following assumptions: First of all, the indications of existing reserves are surely no evidence that they exist and, moreover, that they are exploitable. Secondly, even if they end up as evidence, this doesn’t automatically lead to new contracts and drilling. Especially in an era of low oil and gas prices on the global markets, which are even forcing the US “shale revolution” to a halt, even for a short term.

On the other side, the Black Sea

is valuable not only because of its estimated deposits. It is a natural energy hub, connecting Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East with the Mediterranean and Europe. As a matter of fact, it might be better for the countries of SE Europe to focus on this side of the Black Sea. Even if the geopolitical risks remain high, as great powers are engaged in an undeclared energy war, which includes the region – that was once again proven by the reactions prompted in Brussels and Washington during the Greek prime minister’s recent trip to Russia and the signing of a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in the Turkish Stream project.

www.energyworldmag.com

Your Energy Magazine for SE Europe & East Med

EnergyWorld

@EnergyWorldmag

➤

6

02THE GAS PIPELINES, THE COLD WAR AND THE BLACK SEA REGIONSince the end of the Cold War, the Black Sea region has gained even greater political and economic importance and has become the subject of a dominance battle between world powers including the United States of America, Russia and the most influential member states of the European Union. While these world powers battle for dominance, local players such as Turkey and Ukraine have also gained importance and have used their geopolitical position to promote themselves as key international policy players.

Geopolitics of energyVeton Qoku*

The Black Sea region has, throughout history, represented an area of global interest. As one of the most important strategic east-west corridors between Asia and Europe (that connects Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East), the region has often been at the heart of political tension, economic interest and military aspirations.

The importance of the Black Sea region is more evident in no other but the energy sector. This region has become one of the most important crossroads through which both Russia and the European Union are trying to exert energy sector control, particularly in the area of natural gas.

On the one hand, Russia is trying to maintain its dominance in Europe’s energy sector. It has attempted to bypass the troublesome Ukraine as a transit country (although this has been, at least partly, achieved with the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which transports natural gas from Russia through the Baltic Sea to North-eastern Germany), while at the same time denying Ukraine and Moldova alternative gas supplies.

On the other hand, the European Union is trying to decrease its Russian energy dependency by using the Black Sea region to bypass Russia and to purchase natural gas directly from alternative Caspian Sea suppliers (thus reducing Russia’s political leverage in the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea region, and in South-eastern Europe).

The European Union seems to have based its strategic goal to decrease Russian dominance in Europe’s natural gas market on both political and economic/ financial reasoning. While the political reasoning is self-evident, the economic/ financial reasoning may perhaps be best explained by referring to an article from the Russian newspaper “Izvestia” containing a list of prices of Russian gas sold in different European countries. Specifically, this price list indicates that countries that are heavily dependent on Russian gas pay a much higher price in comparison to countries that have a liberalised gas-to-gas market.

Nabucco vs South StreamThe broader Black Sea Region, encompassing the twelve Black Sea

7

Economic Cooperation member states (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine) has had more than its fair share of proposed oil pipeline projects, reflecting the importance of this region for the European energy sector.

What started off in the early and mid-nineties as a rivalry between two highly promising large gas pipeline projects, the EU-backed Nabucco and the Russian-backed South Stream, seemed to have finished ingloriously for both parties and projects.

Specifically, Russia officially dropped the South Stream natural gas pipeline project in late 2014 due to complications related to regulatory challenges and non-compliance with the EU’s Third Energy Package, particularly in the area of ownership unbundling which would have required the separation of Russian companies’ generation and sale operations from their transmission networks.

The Nabucco project also seems to have

hit a major stumbling block (although the project has not officially been cancelled or dropped yet). Namely, the decision of the members of the Shah Deniz II Consortium to select the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (as part of the Southern Gas Corridor) as the delivery route for the initial 10 bcm of gas to the Italian market has posed some serious challenges and has left Nabucco’s shareholders in a difficult position regarding the future of the project.

Alternative pipeline projectsSince the original European and Russian rival projects (seem to) have fallen through, both the European Union and Russia have quickly turned their attention to the next geopolitical battle.

The European Union now seems poised to offer its support behind the Southern Gas Corridor project which would include three separate but interconnected segments of one gas pipeline corridor: (i) the already functional South Caucasus Pipeline; (ii) the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline - TANAP (expected to be constructed by 2018); and (iii) the Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP

(expected to be constructed by 2018).

The Southern Gas Corridor will ultimately transport natural gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, through Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Albania and the Adriatic Sea to Italy. Moreover, the corridor will have the possibility for further connections to gas networks in South Eastern, Central and Western Europe.

Russia is unlikely to sit idly by as the Southern Gas Corridor project is under development. In its latest move, Russia has indicated that it will attempt to effectuate the suggested natural gas pipeline project from Russia to Turkey across the Black Sea and then to the Turkish-Greek border. The suggested annual capacity for this pipeline is 63 billion cubic metres (same as that which was planned for the South Stream project). The projected pipeline remains without an official name as of yet, however it has been referred to as the Turkish Stream in the media.

Russia seems to be on the diplomatic offensive side in obtaining support for

8

the Turkish Stream project with Russian President Vladimir Putin holding talks on this subject matter with both his Turkish and Greek counterparts Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Alexis Tsipras respectively. The foreign ministers of Serbia, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, and Macedonia also recently held a meeting to discuss their potential participation in the Turkish Stream pipeline project.

The role of the Western BalkansEU candidate countries Albania, FYROM, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as potential applicants Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, would all like to benefit from the planed pipeline projects and to avoid being bypassed by gas pipeline developments in the region. Moreover, all of these countries are, to the best of their leadership’s abilities, attempting to become transit countries (instead of a cul-de-sac) with respect to any pipeline that may cross through their territory, which would in turn give them a greater

geopolitical and economic stake in these energy developments.

Russia’s natural gas dominance in the region would surely be diminished by the development of the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline, leaving the possibility for Western Balkan countries to become more energy secure open.

* Veton Qoku, Associate of Karanovic & Nikolic Law Firm

The European Union seems to have based its strategic goal to decrease Russian dominance in Europe’s natural gas market on both political and economic/ financial reasoning

Online Telecom & Mobile Tech Magazine

news - smartphones - tablets - tech & gadgets - apps & games - TV

www.mobilenewsmag.com

Mobile News EU

@MobileNewsEU

10

03Romania’s Role in se euRope’s Gas pipelines Gamein the wake of nabucco’s demise in 2013, Romania was left without involvement in any major regional natural gas transport project. But in fact, the country can play a larger strategic role in the region’s natural gas policies, namely to connect the southern Gas Corridor (sGC) to the north-south Corridor (planned to connect the Baltic and adriatic seas). in order to achieve such a role, it needs both interconnectors and a larger scale transport capacity.

Geopolitics of energyRadu Dudau*

The Southern Gas Corridor (SGC), planned to ship Caspian gas to Italy by 2020, has indirectly remained within reach for gas imports, depending on the construction of a Greek-Bulgarian and a Bulgarian-Romanian gas interconnectors. Yet,other than that, no large-scale project of international gas infrastructure was set to cross or to be developed in Romania – until recently, that is.

Instead, on the one hand, Bucharest has advanced plans for new domestic energy projects: two nuclear reactors in Cernavoda; a pumped-storage hydroelectricity plant at Tarnita-Lapustesti to help the national power system cope with recent years’ boom of renewable energy sources; exploring and developing shale gas plays (presently a remote prospect, after Chevron’s recent announcement of Romanian exit) and natural gas fields in the Black Sea’s deep waters etc.

On the other hand, Bucharest has continued, albeit at a slow pace, to build gas interconnectors with the neighboring countries, in order to enable the creation of a workable SEE regional gas market

and mutual assistance capacity in case of supply crises.

However, Romania can play a larger strategic role in the region’s natural gas policies, namely to connect the SGC to the North-South Corridor (planned to connect the Baltic and Adriatic Seas). In order to achieve such a role, it needs both interconnectors and a larger scale transport capacity.

2014 brought a sense of urgency in energy diplomacy, after about one year’s political lull. The March 2014 annexation of Crimea and the de facto war that followed intensified the risk of a new transit cut-off of Russian gas through Ukraine. As a matter of fact, from June to October 2014, Gazprom actually cut supplies to Ukraine, but not transit through the country. Supplies were resumed under provisional contractual terms, yet the protracting gas pricing issue and Kiev’s outstanding debt dispute raise the prospect of new supply stand-offs on the short term.

More generally, Moscow has made its unwillingness to renew its gas transit

11

contract through Ukraine known, which expires in 2019. This comes down, in effect, to a decision to bypass Ukraine by rerouting no less than 60 bcm/year, of which 15 bcm/year go to Turkey and the rest to the EU markets. This goes together with another event that has formed ripples in Central and South-Eastern Europe (CEE-SEE): the cancellation of the South Stream project, stated by Vladimir Putin in December 2014, and the subsequent announcement of the Turkish Stream plan, which is to connect the Russkaya station to the Turkish coast at Kiyikoy.

Because of its rich implications, the latter decision has triggered a frantic game of alternative project proposals in the CEE-SEE region, as countries come up with new arrangements in the hope of getting the best out the Turkish Stream proposition.

“Hungary is pursuing an active policy to allow gas to arrive from Turkey, via other countries, through Serbia to Hungary and Central Europe”, stated the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as he hosted the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Budapest, on February 25, 2015. By “other countries”, Orban referred to a European corridor of Russia-friendly states – Turkey, Greece, FYROM, Serbia, Hungary, and Austria – with shared energy-policy interests.

Indeed this is the route that Gazprom also promotes, but its creation requires much more than building the undersea connection and bringing gas to Turkey.

Aside from its massive financial challenge, it will have to fulfill the same stringent regulatory demands as the South Stream itself – assuming it will be built at all. There is no reason to think that the EU competition authorities will be any more lenient.

Another set of transport options relies on a South-North corridor, suggestively labeled the Aegean-Baltic Corridor (ABC), meant to run from Greece to Poland. One segment of the ABC would go from Greece to Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary – the so-called BRUA (Bulgaria-Romania-Hungary-Austria) option. An alternative to BRUA would

be to go from Romania to Ukraine and Slovakia – the Eastring option, as explained below.

In the larger order of things, Turkey will be pivotal to both the SGC and Turkish Stream, Russia’s own Southern Corridor. Ankara has the clear goal of becoming a physical and commercial gas hub, as opposed to a mere transit territory. Yet for further gas transportation to Europe, Greece will be a juncture of diverging paths towards the European markets. For SEE, Romania can well be one, too.

Before we get into the details of the South-North transport options, it is helpful to consider some technical characteristics of Romania’s gas transport system.

The gas transport systemRomania has four interconnection points with neighboring countries: Mediesu Aurit, an entry point of 4 bcm/year at the northern border with Ukraine; Isaccea, an entry point of 8.6 bcm/year at the eastern Romanian-Ukrainian border; Csanadpalota, at the Hungarian-Romanian border, of 1.75 bcm/year on the Hungarian side and 0.087 bcm/year reverse-flow capacity; and Iasi-Ungheni, the Romanian-Moldovan gas interconnector of 0.04 bcm/year current export capacity.

The country’s aggregated import capacity is 14.37 bcm/year, the aggregated export cpacity of which is a mare 0.13 bcm/year. The latter is to increase as soon as the Giurgiu-Ruse

The eastring proposal capitalizes on using Romania’s transit system in reverse flow, which means use of an already existent infrastructure, large available capacity and considerably higher pressure

Map 1 Source: Transgaz and EPG

12

inteconnector between Romania and Bulgaria will be completed. Its capacity will start at 0.5 bcm/year in both flow directions, and will reach 1.5 bcm/year. Nonetheless, the interconnector’s works have already seen serious delay: it was supposed to be commissioned in 2013, but the line has not underscrossed the Danube River, ostensibly because of complex geology. Although a tender for a new contractor was opened, Transgaz and Bulgargas have announced the pipe will be finished by the end of 2015. Besides, increasing reverse-flow capacity to Hungary is overdue, and new compression capacity is to be installed to increase the export volume to Moldova.

One important technical fact is that the Romanian gas transport system operates at low pressure (6-35 bar) whereas all the neighboring countries’ systems operate at pressures higher than 55 bar. The fact is directly relevant to Romania’s capacity to export natural gas, as it requires considerable compression capacity.

Romania also hosts a gas transit system that crosses its southeastern corner, in fact the Romanian segment of the Trans-Balkan Pipeline through which Russia exports gas via Ukraine

and Moldova to Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and the Balkan states, as well as Turkey. The transit system operates at 53 bar and consists of three lines – called respectively Transit I, Transit II, and Transit III – that enter the country at Isaccea and exit at Negru Voda, at the Romanian-Bulgarian border. Their aggregated capacity is 25 bcm/year. The transit pipelines are neither connected to the Romanian transport system nor between each other, as they have separate entry points.

The current transit contracts for each of these three lines expire as follows: December 31, 2016 (Transit I); December 31, 2015 (Transit II), and December 31, 2023 (Transit III). After that, in line with the Third Energy Package, the pipelines will have to be integrated into the national transport system, and allow reverse flows and third-party access. This opens new options for Bucharest to design its role in the development of a regional gas market.

Romania’s options in the regional gas marketThe Bulgaria-Romania-Hungary-Austria (BRUA) corridor was suggested by the Romanian TSO Transgaz and agreed upon inter-governmentally in 2014 as part of a larger EU-supported gas corridor planned to extend from the

2014 brought a sense of urgency in energy diplomacy, after about one year’s political lull. The march 2014 annexation of Crimea and the de facto war that followed intensified the risk of a new transit cut-off of Russian gas through ukraine.

Map 2: Eastring – Basics of the proposed solution Source: Eastring

13

Aegean to the Baltic Seas (ABC). Not only will this system connect Romania to the Southern Gas Corridor and the LNG terminals (existent and planned) of Greece, but it would also ensure gas flows to and from the West, in a broad and inclusive plan to interconnect the energy grids of Europe’s Center and South East.

Within the BRUA project, Romania intends to internally link the Giurgiu and Arad interconnection points by means of a 550 km-long pipeline due to be finished in 2019 at an estimated cost of €560m. As shown in map 1, the Giurgiu-Arad pipe will connect at Podisor (close to Bucharest) with a 250 km-long (€250m worth) spur to the Black Sea coast, in order to offer an outlet for potential Black Sea gas production. As a Romanian proposal for the list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), the Giurgiu-Arad pipe (also known as the Danube Pipeline) is likely to qualify for financial support from EU’s Connecting Europe Facility (CFE).

Another option is the proposal made by Eustream, the Slovak TSO, of a pipeline called Eastring, designed to connect Isaccea and Mediesu Aurit in Romania and to continue towards Slovakia’s Velke Kapusany either through south-western Ukraine (Eustream’s preferred choice), or parallel to the Tisa river, by the Romanian-Ukrainian frontier, towards Hungary and then Slovakia. The Eastring proposal capitalizes on using Romania’s transit system in reverse flow, which means use of an

already existent infrastructure, large available capacity and considerably higher pressure (75bar+) than the Danube Pipeline (40bar). Simultaneously, the distance from the transit pipelines to the Black Sea coast is much shorter, so that potential offshore production would have a simpler transport solution. Therefore, at least technically, the Eastring seems to be a superior option.

A geostrategic complication of the Eastring proposal stems from Budapest’s dislike of the Ukrainian crossing. Since the Eastring endeavors to be the most attractive transmission option for gas shipped via Turkish Stream, a good part of the volumes to be transported to Central Europe would bypass Hungary – hence the green line on map 2, displaying the Eastring’s geopolitical adaptability.

In any event, the Romanian planners seem to have settled both for the Danube Pipeline and for large parts of the Eastring concept, in that precise order. After the Danube Pipeline, Transgaz plans to build a connecting line from Isaccea to Onesti, worth an estimated €65 m, ensuring a bidirectional link between the Romanian transport system and the Bulgarian grid. From there on, it would close a loop in Hateg via Coroi (Mures County) and join the Danube Pipeline – that is the BRUA corridor – and thus offer supplementary capacity for the transport of Black Sea production. As shown on map 1, from Coroi, the project can branch out upwards and

basically follow the Eastring’s blueprint.

The scale and unfolding speed of these projects largely depend on gas volumes available internally and externally, on market dynamics, on investment capacity, and also on geopolitical calculus. They will not only allow for exports of excess domestic gas production, but also imports from new sources: the Caspian, the East Mediterranean, and the Middle Eastern. Accordingly, they will enhance the country’s and the region’s energy security and will ultimately, in a competitive gas market, as well as benefit final consumers, who will be able to get the best deal out of several choices.

* Radu Dudau is Director of the Energy Policy Group (EPG), an independent think-tank specializing in energy policy. He is also an Associate Professor of International Relations at Bucharest University.

14

04MultidiMensional energy policy froM greeceit is with particular attention that both the united states and the european union monitor the placements of the newly elected greek government, in terms of the country’s energy interconnections with natural gas pipelines, as well as in the electric power sector. several initiatives are already causing discomfort, while “pointing” at options that do not support their country’s ties with russia. However, as demonstrated in practice, these choices are never simple...

geopolitics of energyPenelope Mitroulia

The new “multi-dimensional energy strategy that will not allow the country to become an energy banana republic and protectorate of anyone”, as the Minister of Productive Reconstruction Panagiotis Lafazanis proclaims, originally causes surprise, mainly because of the formalities chosen by the Greek Minister. At the same time, discomfort is becoming apparent about the possible shift of Greek energy strategy towards Russia, at a time when the European Union is aiming at reducing the European dependence on Russian gas as much as possible, while nothing has changed in the longitudinal position of the US regarding the necessity for the existence of multiple power sources. A position expressed in diplomatic language, but everyone knows that the message hidden behind the words is very clear: “Reduce your dependence on the Russians and turn to alternative gas supply sources such as Azerbaijan”.

And the message was sent to the Greek government by Ms. Robin Dubbigan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, responsible for the diplomacy of energy resources for the US State Department,

who recently spoke in Athens, at an energy conference organized by the New York Times.

Speaking directly after the Minister of Productive Reconstruction Panagiotis Lafazanis, who had stated that Greece is not -under the current government- going to become “a dependent pawn of unilateral energy options or axes, and that in the name of the supposed otherwise necessary, diversification of energy sources for the EU power supply”. Mrs. Dubbigan noted that there are several points of agreement with the Greek minister, however there are areas of disagreement.

More specifically, the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs focused on the importance of the issue of energy security, both for the West and its allies, especially after the saddening example of the Ukrainian crisis. For the area of southern Europe, the American diplomat stressed the importance of the Southern Corridor as it supplies “non-Russian gas” from the Caspian to Europe via Turkey and Greece.

“We are delighted by the support, for

15

the South Corridor and the TAP, stated the Greek Minister. The IGB pipeline is equally important and we are looking forward to seeing real progress in the coming period”, he added.

However, in order for the Southern Corridor pipeline to be implemented, Ms. Dubbigan said that two obstacles must be overcome. The first is funding. “The second is the diversions. And by diversions, we mean that there are some other infrastructures many years away from being completed, or are either not feasible and yet cause distractions from the target. I would add the Turkish Stream to this category of diversionary conduit, which is a project that does not only bring new gas but also old gas from a different route”, said the American secretary of state for Foreign Affairs and concluded by stressing that the US will continue to cooperate for the goal of energy security in the region.

Mr. Mat Bryza, former US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, competent in energy policy issues and current director of the International Centre for Defence Studies, was less diplomatic than Mrs. Dubbigan.

“I heard the Minister of Energy stress the need for many directions in the energy policy and that the great powers should not exploit smaller ones. We have no objection. If these are Greece’s goals, the worst thing you can do is step back in terms of the TAP which is part of the so-called Southern Corridor and return to the monopoly (meaning

Gazprom), which drove Greece so far as to pay gas more expensive than any other country in Europe”, said the former member of the State Department speaking at the same conference.

In fact, Mr. Bryza referring to the Turkish Stream pipeline expressed the opinion that Brussels will not let the Russians to win another “key” for the supply of

Europe as this is contrary to the Union’s policies. Speaking of Turkish energy policy, he stated that Ankara wants to attract as much natural gas as possible to become a major energy hub and energy gateway towards Europe, he did however express the notion that Turkey does not want to “kill” the South gas Corridor because it wants to attain bargaining power over Gazprom and doesn’t want to gather “all the eggs” in Russia’s basket. He also criticized the fact that two years ago he himself had predicted that the implementation of the Nabucco would proceed, while the TAP pipeline crossing through Greece was finally selected.

the ministerA speech by the Minister of Productive Reconstruction Panagiotis Lafazanis took place earlier on, in which he stated: “We are not a satellite of any great power; we follow a multidimensional and multifaceted energy policy towards every direction. Greece is too small to be placed in a state of an energy banana republic!”.

Repeating what he had said a few days earlier at the first Council of Energy Ministers in Brussels, the Minister of Productive Reconstruction, offended the “neoliberal policy that followed by the European Union in the energy sector” as he stated, he spoke of “an uncompromising persistence of Europe on liquidations” and repeated that “the strategic energy infrastructures are not for sale”.

He referred to “large capitalist countries

the us secretary of state for foreign affairs focused on the importance of the issue of energy security, both for the West and its allies, especially after the saddening example of the ukrainian crisis. for the area of southern europe, the american diplomat stressed the importance of the southern corridor

Robin Dunnigan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Diplomacy, Bureau of Energy Resources, State Department

Panagiotis Lafazanis, Minister of Reconstruction of Production, Environment & Energy

16

“Hold” on the greek requests by the azeris

The reduction of the price of natural gas that Greece will purchase from Azerbaijan from 2020 through the TAP, is one of the three key priorities set by the Minister of Productive Reconstruction, Panagiotis Lafazanis. He “places” it in the “new multidimensional energy strategy”, he wants to apply with the sole priority of, the national interest and the country’s development needs as he stresses.

Apart from the reduction of natural gas prices Mr. Lafazanis seeks the participation of the Greek State through DEPA or other means, in the share capital of the TAP, and the collection of transit fees from the pipeline.

These three issues are raised by Mr. Lafazanis at every opportunity, starting from his contacts in Baku, Azerbaijan only a few days after taking office, where he went to attend the first meeting of the Advisory Board for the Southern Gas Corridor. In Baku, Mr. Lafazanis met with the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, and raised the issue of offsets for Greece from the implementation of the TAP, in his meetings with Azerbaijan’s Energy Minister, with the Managing Director of the TAP and the regional president of BP for Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia.

However, the first messages that came from Azerbaijan as a response to the Greek demands, do not seem to create conditions of optimism. According to the Azeri media, the three requests by part of Mr. Lafazanis, do not appear to currently at least find fertile ground.

This follows from what the vice chairman of Socar Elchant Nazirosaid stated to the Azeri agency “azernews”, answering questions about the discussions with the Greek Minister, during his visit to Baku.

As Mr. Nazirof stated, “if and whether Greece wants to acquire a share in the TAP company, we are willing to

sell part of our percentage. However, a basic condition is that the Greek side hurries and pays the price in a timely manner. Our desires do indeed coincide, we want the pipeline to become “more Greek”. However it is important that the buyer is a company of responsibility (ie. Solvency), so as not to delay the construction of the pipeline which is an integral part of the Southern Corridor”. It should be noted that the Azeris hold more than 20% of the TAP company.

The second issue raised by Nazirof regards the reduction of the price of gas that will be supplied to Greece after 2020 through the TAP in order to meet domestic needs. This is one billion cubic meters of gas annually, as agreed between DEPA and Socar in a contract signed in 2013. “A reduction in natural gas prices is impossible, this is not consistent with international practice”, said Nazirof. And explained that “according to the contract signed by the two sides a negotiation on gas selling prices may only be made further to particularly abrupt fluctuations in international prices”. This however, according to the Azeri official, “could be discussed only after the commencement of gas supply and Greece is not currently buying gas from us, so there is no such issue at the moment”.

In addition to the above, he added, such a discussions do not only concern Greece and Azerbaijan, but the request must be addressed to each of the companies forming the consortium of the TAP pipeline (ie. BP with 20% of the shares, Socar with 20%, Statoil with 20%, Fluxys with 19%, Enagas with 16% and Axpo with 5%).

Lastly, regarding the third request by Mr. Lafazanis for Greece to received fees for the pipeline’s crossing of Greek soil (trasmission fees) an issue unforeseen by the original agreement, Mr. Nazirof’s reply was that this issue does not concern the Azerbaijani side but should be set at an EU level.

Matthew Bryza, Ambassador, Director, International Centre for Defence Studies - Michael Hoffmann, External Affairs Director, TAP - Emily Olson, VP Communications & External Affairs for the Southern Corridor, BP

17

which comprehend the control of energy routes as a tool to oppress the smaller ones” for “small countries that risk to become the toys of major multinational giants” and to “energy that is not the field for rampant speculation but one of the social goods”.

He repeated his opposition to the new policy promoted by the EU for in advance control by part of the European Commission of the contracts signed by Member States with third countries, saying that “this undermines national sovereignty”. At the same time, he expressed his personal reservations about the EU’s policy on the Energy Union in the electricity sector and noted that “Greece will not become anyone’s dependent pawn in the name of the alleged cease of EU’s dependence supply sources”.

With regard to the pipeline, he stated that “for us, the energy routes and platforms, are not simple pipes, but valuable tools which must connect people on roads of peace and development”.

Lastly, regarding hydrocarbons, he stated that “the government’s priority will be the delimitation of maritime zones with neighboring countries, based on the strict application of maritime law rules, that is also the ‘acquis communautaire’”, stressing that the government will soon take initiatives to this direction.

the opposition“The country is driven to an international energy isolation, if the government understands its participation in European affairs as an energy banana republic”, said the former Minister of Energy Yiannis Maniatis commenting on the statements of Panagiotis Lafazanis.

Mr. Maniatis argued in his statement that in the recent years the country has followed a patriotic and multidimensional energy policy leading it to be treated at an international level as a major new source of energy supply for Europe. He also added that in an energy-dependent EU and with a broader unstable geopolitical environment from Ukraine, Syria and Iraq to Egypt and Libya, Greece is an energy oasis of stability, regional cooperation, peace and development.

“With our active participation, we have set off our maritime financial zones into promising areas of support for the energy supply security both for our country as well as the rest of the EU”, noted Mr. Maniatis, adding that “the recent European Commission’s decision to implement the Energy Union is a major initiative with huge benefits for Europe and especially for medium and small-sized countries like Greece and all countries in the European Region.

Lastly, Mr. Maniatis said that “an energy pariah and protectorate is only whoever

faces the global energy challenges with isolationism, introversion and obsession. The country and its people require us to utilize our comparative advantages as a serious, new energy outlook of the Mediterranean and Southeast Europe”.

To clarify its ambiguous –as he stated–position on energy issues, the former deputy Minister of Energy, Makis Papageorgiou invited the government to the podium of the conference. As he said, the government does not yet have specific positions on critical issues such as the sale of DESFA linked to synergies with the TAP, or appear to negotiate and to demand the participation of Greece in the TAP company when provided for by the previous government’s agreement which ensured a 5% participation rate in the company. Mr. Papageorgiou also urged the government to clarify its position on the liberalization of markets and the independence of energy managers and the Energy Regulatory Authority. “Creative ambiguity has no position in the energy policy, no idleness is allowed for, while the EU shows the cooperation and intensification of relations, Greece cannot and should not choose isolation”, he added. Finally, he stressed that the “Nea Dimokratia” political party will support the government’s positive initiatives, but will however react when obsessions would jeopardize the country’s European future.

18

05Turkey’s paTh Towards energy independencenatural gas imports in Turkey increased by 65 percent within just four years -from 15.7 billion cubic meters per annum in 2004 to 35.8 bcm in 2008, according to official data. The government and energy officials hope that Black sea reserves are enough to solve the country’s need for energy, once and for all. There is no doubt that the expectations are great, but so far the results are extremely poor.

overviewVladimir Spasic

Turkey officials are hoping that the Black Sea oil and gas reserves, estimated at 10 billion barrels of oil and 1.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, could make the country self-sufficient. This would mean that the country which now imports about 90 percent of oil and almost 100 percent of natural gas could satisfy all its needs by domestic production. Rigs are drilling as we speak, in order to make this happen, but previous attempts, that first took place in the early 1970s, weren’t successful.

The hungry Turkish economy consumes more and more energy every day because the average GDP growth in the last ten years is above 5 percent. Data show that the natural gas imports increased from 15.7 billion cubic meters per annum in 2004 to 35.8 bcm just four years later, a 65-percent increase. The country’s energy use is still relatively low, although it is increasing at a fast pace. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), energy use will continue to grow at an annual growth rate of approximately 4.5% from 2015 to 2030, close to doubling over the next decade.

But President and CEO of the national oil and gas company TPAO, Mehmet Uysal, made it clear: “Turkish Black Sea reserves will meet Turkey’s need for oil for the next 40 years, ending Turkish dependency on foreign countries for energy. The Black Sea oil reserves may be as high as 10 billion barrels, along with 1.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves. By 2023, Turkey will not be importing oil and natural gas.”

Exxon Mobil Exploration and Production Romania and Petrom, owned by Austrian OMV, announced in February 2012 that a natural gas deposit was discovered in the Neptune block, at 170 kilometers from the shore in waters with a depth of about 930 meters. Companies made a preliminary estimate for the Domino-1 well of gas accumulation ranging from 1.5 trillion to 3 trillion cubic feet (42 billion cubic meters to 84 billion cubic meters). The commerciality of the find is still under discussion. The water depth and the relative remoteness of the region from other deepwater exploration areas will make getting the equipment needed to exploit the find an expensive business.

19

On October 27 last year, Petrom announced that the company along with Exxon Mobil started drilling a new exploration well to search for resources that may help the country gain energy independence by 2020.

- We are encouraged by the good results so far, in both shallow and deep waters. However, much of the activity in the Black Sea deepwater area is of a frontier, pioneering nature, involving high investment risks and therefore requiring a stable investment framework, Gabriel Selischi, member of Petrom’s board responsible for exploration and production, said in the statement.

This big Romanian discovery awoke the interest of international oil and gas companies in the region. Shell acted first in Turkey and quickly started negotiations with officials. Results came in the beginning of this year.

- Shell and Turkish Petroleum (TPAO) began drilling activities in the Black Sea this month, a year earlier than originally planned - representatives from the companies said January 6.

According to the deal, Shell is bearing the cost of deep-sea operations while drilling is jointly funded. Approximately $300 million will be invested in the drilling activities carried out by the companies.

Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said he was optimistic about the drilling, as the site is very close to where Romania made new discoveries.

- Our new target is to build a drilling platform for around $1 billion. The new seismic exploration ship, which was built in the northwestern district of Tuzla, is expected to be ready in March - Yildiz added.

so far, no good…Petroleum geoscience magazine “Geoexpro” writes that Turkey holds the largest Black Sea acreage and state officials are aiming for commercial production in either 2015 or 2016. However, - Although there is plenty of available acreage, so far this investment has yielded very little in terms of commercial reserves, and concerns that the Black Sea’s prospective may

shell and Tpao

Collecting as much data as possible

- We have begun drilling activities almost a year earlier than we had scheduled to commence, thanks to the coherent partnership with TPAO and support from the authorities - said Shell Turkey Country Director Ahmet Erdem.

The 3-D seismic data for the drilling was collected by the TPAO ship “Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa”, he added. Both companies will drill an exploration well 100 km offshore in the western Black Sea at depths below 2,000 meters. The drilling ship will be supported by three ships and two helicopters. Approximately 240 people are expected to work on the site.

- The main aim of the project is to collect as much data as possible, said Deputy President of TPAO Besim Sisman.

20

be overrated have affected investment levels - says Geoexpro.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), most of Turkey’s 295 million barrels of proven oil reserves are located in the Batman and Adiyaman Provinces in the southeast (which is also where most of Turkey’s oil production occurs), with additional deposits found in Thrace in the northwest. All of this is onshore.

- Offshore reserves may become a future source of Turkey’s oil supply. There may be significant reserves under the Aegean Sea, although this has not been confirmed because of ongoing territorial

disputes with Greece. The Black Sea may also hold significant oil production potential for Turkey. The Turkish national oil company, TPAO, has increased its exploration activities in the Turkish part of the Black Sea, which could hold between 7 and 10 billion barrels of oil – the EIA estimates.

TPAO has invested some $4 billion in offshore oil exploration in the Black sea since it initiated seismic studies in the region in the 1970s. According to Turkish daily “Hurriyet” exploration activities in the Black Sea basins date back to the early 1970s, however the country, desperately seeking energy, has fostered its operations there only during the last 10 years. TPAO had established several joint-venture projects with giant international companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Petrobras and BP, but so far has failed to accomplish significant discoveries.

“Turkish Black sea reserves will meet Turkey’s need for oil for the next 40 years, ending Turkish dependency on foreign countries for energy. The Black sea oil reserves may be as high as 10 billion barrels, along with 1.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves

oil statistics

- 295 million barrels proven reserves, mostly onshore in the southeast region

- Turkey’s oil production peaked in 1991 at 85,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), but then it declined each year and bottomed out in 2004 at 43,000 bbl/d

- 90% of crude oil consumption and significant quantities of petroleum products came from imports

- According to the IEA, Turkey’s crude oil imports are expected to double over the next decade

Source: Oil & Gas Journal

natural gas statistics

- 241 billion cubic feet (Bcf) proved reserves

- Turkey produced 22 Bcf of natural gas in 2012

- TPAO, BP, and Shell account for most of the country’s natural gas production

- About 99 percent of needs are imported

Source: Oil & Gas Journal

21

UPI reported that from 2004 to 2009, TPAO with joint venture partners, among them Toreador Resources and Stratic Energy, began a massive exploration program for indigenous natural gas deposits both onshore and offshore. The extensive seismic program carried out in the Black Sea made TPAO and other oil companies focus their attention there, with TPAO and its partners focused on exploring and developing hydrocarbon reserves in its Akcakoca concession.

The original well in the area, the Akcakoca-1, had been drilled by the joint venture and discovered gas, but was subsequently plugged and abandoned. The consortium subsequently used the Akcakoca-1 data along with seismic test data, beginning in late 2004, to drill a series of successful gas wells, starting with the Ayazli-1 and continuing through early 2006 with the Akkaya, Dogu Ayazli and Bayhanli discoveries and development wells.

By December 2006, the joint venture partners had drilled their 10th successful well, the Akcakoca-3, in the South Akcakoca Sub-Basin Black Sea concession. TPAO has also reached out to other foreign companies - the same year as Akcakoca-3 was drilled, TPAO signed a $350 million Joint Venture Operating Agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras for further exploration and development in the Black Sea. But cooperation with Petrobras wasn’t successful.

Turkey’s oil production is less than 70,000 boe/d and gas production is even smaller. The country imports 90% of its oil and almost 100 % of its natural gas needs.

- Nor is Turkey about proven reserves: It has only about 270 million barrels of proven oil reserves and 218 billion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, so it isn’t exactly Iraq - which borders with Turkey to the southeast - analysis of Oilandgas-investments.com showed.

Tpao optimismAt the crossroads between Europe, Middle-East-Africa and Asia, Turkey is joining the group of the emerging countries with sustainable growth supported by the most dynamic industry in the region and significant oil and gas resources. In this context, Turkey assigned itself the goal to enter the Top 10 economical countries by year of the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. To support this ambition, Turkey listed a number of initiatives and targets to

be achieved as part of the Turkey 2023 Vision. One of the major initiatives of the 2023 Vision is to become energy self-sufficient in 2023.

According to TPAO General Manager Mehmet Uysal, a further investment of $50 billion to $60 billion will be required to start oil extraction in Black Sea if the exploration yields positive results.

TPAO is the main exploration and production entity in Turkey. As a national oil company (NOC), TPAO has got the mandate to explore and develop all the potential resources in Turkey to boost the oil and gas production in order to meet 2023 demand.

- The first economic gas discovery we carried out in the Western Black Sea in 2004 made this region the center of interest and exploration activities, by also covering the Mediterranean, increased year by year. We are excited and aware that the successful results that may be obtained from the drillings in our offshore fields will carry both Turkish Petroleum and Turkey to “2023 targets” - TPAO President and CEO Uysal stated.

Black sea reserves

- 10 billion barrels, along with 1,5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas

- $4 billion invested in oil exploration since 1970s

- Investment of $50 billion to $60 billion will be required to start oil extraction if the exploration is successful

Source: TPAO

22

06MORE HOPE THAN ACTION IN BULGARIAN GAS POLICYThe end of the South Stream might force the Bulgarian authorities to search for a real alternative for its gas supplies. However, the truth is that natural gas represents only 12% of the country’s final energy consumption; most households could easily switch to electricity (cheaper than most alternatives) and only a few companies use gas as a primalry resource for their production.

Geopolitics of energyNikolay Jekov

Every now and then, the Bulgarian authorities like to make plans in order to render Bulgaria energy independent. They’ve been doing this for 15 years. With one decisive stroke of the pen, the country has cast aside its almost 100% dependency on Gazprom several times already. But nothing has ever changed. It thus comes as no surprise that Bulgaria is singled out as the country that will suffer the most in case of a sudden interruption of the natural gas transit via Ukraine.

What might bring a real and lasting change is the abrupt cancellation of the South Stream at the end of 2014 – the gigantic pipeline that was supposed to circumvent Ukraine and bring Russian natural gas to European consumers via Bulgaria. The rather obvious intention of Gazprom to punish Bulgaria for blocking the project under European Commission pressure– by choosing a complicated and much longer route around Bulgaria, would definitely sober down at least some of the Russian company’s sympathizers, and will force the Bulgarian authorities to seek an alternative.

So far, diversification projects are not

going very well. Some of them are facing factual obstacles – such as the lack of natural gas deposits in Bulgaria. Others are not proceeding due to the strong preference by the part of politicians and industry decision makers to defend the current energy status quo. The usual culprit - the restrictions imposed by the long-term supply contract with Gazprom, is used as an excuse for not doing anything to speed up with the interconnectors or alternative supplies. Every time the contract approaches its expiration date, the same experts and politicians urge for its renewal, because there is no alternative supplier available.

On top of that, there is no strong pressure over the government to change things. Gas represents only 12% of the country’s total energy consumption; most households could easily switch to electricity (cheaper than most alternatives) and only a few companies use gas as a primary resource for their production.

The Hub – the pink elephant The Bulgarian government’s immediate answer to the suspension of the South Stream was a proposal to create a

23

regional gas hub. “The European Commission pays for the hub, we construct a distribution centre for the Energy Union in Varna, and become number one in terms of diversification”, Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said in December last year. The trade centre, according to the announced plans, is supposed to be fed with Russian gas, regardless of its supply route – the current transit pipelines via Romania, the South Stream, or from Turkey. The second source would be the local production in the Black Sea which the government takes for granted. The third option is Turkish and Greek LNG terminals and the natural gas from the Caspian Sea that will probably reach Bulgaria via the TANAP by 2020. Gas could come from Romania and finally from the resurrected Nabucco pipeline. The South Stream’s sharp turn to Turkey makes Azerbaijan eager to pursue some alternatives to the TAP and the opera pipeline is on the agenda again.

Of course, no government official has dared to mention the big pink elephant in all these calculations – why would anybody come to Bulgaria to buy gas?

Originally, the idea seemed like a replica of Gazprom’s change in plans. According to them, the Turkish Stream, the South Stream substitute, will end at a new hub on the Turkish-Greek border where the consumers in Western Europe will come and buy their gas. So, why not create a similar one in Bulgaria?

The rapid reaction was also a face saving measure. The South Stream has

a significant number of supporters in Bulgaria (68% according to a Gazprom-sponsored survey in 2013) and their complaints had to be muffled with an even larger project. The government announced that the construction of the hub will cost 2.2 bln. Euros, much to the delight of the construction business in the country.

There are two more important reasons for the plan. The idea to establish a gas trading center in Bulgaria is not new one. Some Bulgarian experts who support the South Stream, thought a hub could help evade the requirement of the Third Energy Package that the owner of the pipeline can’t book more than 50% of its capacity. Customers would have bought their gas at the hub and then independently transported it to its final destination. This way, at least in theory, Gazprom would have complied with the EU requirement. The Russian company was apparently not enthusiastic.

The second reason for the hub idea is the uncertainty about the fate of the South Stream. Gazprom has not yet officially ended the project; it didn’t ask for the local company South Stream–Bulgaria to be shut down and it continues to operate. Certain representatives of the Bulgarian authorities privately admit that they are not sure whether this is legal, or whether Moscow could reverse its choice once again. In this case, Bulgaria would be ready with a plan to comply with the EU legislation - see reason one.

Interconnectors – so simple and yet unreachable In the meantime, the first gas link with a

neighboring country might be finalized very soon. By the end of 2015, after serious delay, Bulgaria and Romania will be connected with a reverse flow pipeline. It won’t mean much, because Romania is not ready to supply natural gas to Bulgaria, but it is a step to break the latter’s isolation.

The attempts to diversify gas deliveries for Bulgaria will soon celebrate their tenth anniversary. The first talks about diversification began in 2006, when Bulgaria was to plug its gas grid into the TGI pipeline (Azerbaijan-Turkey-Greece-Italy). The then Bulgarian minister of energy Roumen Ovcharov and President Georgi Parvanov were exploiting the opportunity to get a better deal in the negotiations with Gazprom. The signing of the new contract with Gazprom later that year and the emergence of the South Stream project, meant diversification plans were abandoned.

It was the second Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis in 2009 that finally pushed the Bulgarian government to take some genuine measures. With the help of the EU (Brussels backed the project with 45 million Euros), Bulgaria and Greece agreed to build a gas link between the two countries – the IGB, that could be used to transport Azeri gas when it came around.

For several years, however, there has been no progress. At the beginning, Bulgaria was not happy with the shareholder agreement. Then it become obvious that the Greek-Italian partner, IGI Poseidon S.A., would not be able to provide gas, as it was

24

initially thought and the project stalled.

There is strong criticism that Bulgaria “drags its feet” regarding the project, but it is not entirely justified. Even if the IGB had been built earlier, there was hardly any gas that could have flown through the pipeline. In 2014 during the IGB open season, there was only one offer for 10% of the pipeline’s capacity. A much cheaper solution for the small quantities Greece could provide is the reverse flow installation of the existing transit pipelines. It was put in operation by 2014 and could have provided gas, only if Bulgaria wanted it. The Chairman of the Greek system operator DESFA Antonis Natsikas, explained a year ago for the Bulgarian newspaper “Capital”, that the gas can be provided in an hour following a Bulgarian order. In 2009, during the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis the Greek DEPA was able to deliver 3 mcm of gas.

The new schedule provides that the IGB will be operational by 2018 in order to be ready to receive gas from the TANAP and the TAP. There is currently an understanding that the EU will finance 100% of the 200 mln. construction cost of the 3 bcm pipeline.

The Bulgarian-Romanian connector followed a similar path. In 2009, with the EU financing in hand, the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities began working on the gas link. It took three years to just start the construction and due to technical problems it is not yet completed.

The plans for links with Turkey and Serbia

are at an embryonic stage. The Turkish companies enjoy access to alternative sources of gas and want guarantees that the pipelines will be used; something Bulgargas can’t promise.

The real problem is not so much the absence of connectors, but the lack of character by part of the Bulgarian politicians to stand up to Gazprom. Bulgarian state-owned gas companies insist that most major pipelines are reserved by Gazprom and that virtual trade (trade that enables the transfer of gas from one grid operator to another without physically moving it) is trade breaches in the contract with the Russian company. As a result, in practice, no other company than Gazprom has access to the Bulgarian market. “At this stage, the Commission has concerns that BEH and its subsidiaries have refused to give competitors access to the gas transmission network and the gas storage facility, as well as reserved capacity they do not need on the gas import pipeline,” reads the European Commission preliminary conclusion that the Bulgarian Energy Holding may have breached EU anti-trust rules.

Black Sea HopesThe prospect of gas production from the Bulgarian economic zone in the Black Sea is the new big thing that will make Bulgaria independent from Gazprom. Exploration in the Bulgarian part of the Black Sea for oil and gas has been on-going since the 1970s. The hopes were high, because there used to be small gas production onshore and the region is in

very close proximity to the Romanian deposits. However, gas and oil have never been found.

The activity was renewed after 1991. Then ECI, UPPC, Enterprise, Texaco, OMW, Edison Gas, Maxus and British Gas all acquired exploration rights, with four of these companies being granted licenses to drill in the Black Sea. The first success came in 1993, with the discovery of the Galata gas field by Texaco. Its relatively small size – 2.2 bcm, was not of interest to the oil major and the development rights were obtained by Melrose Resources.

The production started in 2004 and five years later, the deposit was exhausted. Gas extraction continued from the nearby gas fields of Kavarna and Kaliakra. The local production peaked in 2011 when 406 mcm were produced, coming primarily from the Melrose Resources developments, reaching 14% of the gas consumption in Bulgaria. Since then, it is steadily decreasing. It is expected that in 2014, all gas fields in Bulgaria will produce a little over 100 mcm. There are hopes that the new gas discoveries by Petroceltic (which acquired the Melrose Resources in 2012) will increase the output back to around 350 mcm annually by 2016. Even if this actually occurs, the volumes are still very small.

Further to the finding of gas in the Neptun field in Romania, the Bulgarian authorities were buoyant - after all, the 80 bcm gas deposit lay next to the Bulgarian exploration block of Chan

25

Asparuh. The minister of the economy and energy at the time, Delyan Dobrev, used to say that it will render Bulgaria free of Gazprom. The investors flocked in and hopes reached new heights. The consortium between the French Total, Austrian OMV and the Spanish Repsoil paid a 40 mln. Euro bonus in 2012 only for the right to explore the block.

There is still agitation, but the accounts are more realistic now. First of all, Total was quick to dismiss most of the excessive enthusiasm. At the end of 2014, when the French company announced that it postpones the drilling in Chan Asparuh, the company’s local CEO Xavier Faugeras, explained in an interview with the Bulgarian weekly “Capital”, that the geology of the Bulgarian block is not the same as the one in Romania and that the exploration process will be more difficult and expensive. He pointed out that out of seven deep water exploration wells in Black Sea, only one – in Neptun, returned positive results. The first exploration well in Chan Asparuh is now expected to be drilled in the first half of 2016, while the initial plan was for the second half of 2015.

Since not enough candidates had submitted applications for the next tenders for exploration rights in 2012, the Bulgarian government renewed them in 2014. According to the energy minister Temenujka Petkova, there are three international major companies that are interested in the Teres and Silistar blocks. The tenders will be announced any time soon.

Other onshore fields The Onshore gas production in Bulgaria started back in 1965; the expectations were very high. Two years later, Bulgaria decided to build a big fertilizer plant near the gas field of Chiren. However, 12 years later, the gas production ceased and since then the field is used as a storage location.

In the last 15 years, the Bulgarian government issued 10 production concessions for gas, six of which were onshore. The current on-shore gas production is negligible and is exercised by the Bulgarian company OGEP Plc.

The only exploration that inspired some optimism was the gas field of Koinare. In 2012, Direct Petroleum received concession rights and it was expected that by 2015 the gas field would have been connected to the grid. According to the Direct Petroleum’s (now Trans Atlantic Petroleum) Environmental Assessment application, the reservoir in Devenetci contains 13.7 bln m3 of gas and the potential for the other three reservoirs is approximately 20 bln m3. Later the confirmed deposits were significantly reduced in the company’s reports. In the development concession, issued by the Council of Ministers, the declared proven reserves are only 3.6 bcm. Unfortunately recent drilling operations have shown that there is no potential for the industrial production of conventional gas.

With the imposition of the shale gas Moratorium in 2012, and the subsequent withdrawal of Chevron in 2015, plans

to explore for unconventional gas in Bulgaria were quashed. There are some plans to work on coalbed methane (CBM), but the exploration is now obstructed by environmental groups and local communities. The Canadian Park Place Energy Corp. received an exploration license for the Vranino block (in the north-eastern part of Bulgaria), but it is not clear yet when the exploration activities could start.

In the last 15, years Bulgaria has been waiting for a silver bullet – a major gas discovery or a huge transit project to break its energy dependency. Yet, smaller and not so impressive projects might have worked better. Instead of the 63 bcm South Stream, Bulgaria could have been served much better by introducing working reverse flow on the major pipelines. It might have brought small quantities of LNG gas from Greece, but it would have diversified the gas supply and provided Bulgaria with some trump cards in its negotiations with Gazprom. It is more ambitious and challenging to negotiate with Romania to open up some exports for Bulgaria. It won’t be easy, but Sofia could have the European Commission on its side. Brussels has been investigating the Romanian export ban for some time now.

Even though each of these options will not provide for more than half a billion cubic meters of gas each, including the local consumption, together they could cover 50% of the Bulgarian consumption. Sometimes a single drop could make a sea of change.

26

07THE BLACK SEA MEANS INDEPENDENCE FOR ROMANIARomania aims to become self-sufficient in gas by 2020, but in order to achieve this goal it is very important to start producing hydrocarbons from the Black Sea. For this reason, this year will be a historical one for the Romanian oil sector. The companies that have been exploring the Black Sea offshore areas for several years expect to find substantial evidence that they stand on huge natural gas deposits.

Oil & GasEmilia Damian

In order to become self-sufficient in gas and to hope to become an energy exporter, Romania needs the Black Sea gas production. In 2010, when the National Agency for Mineral Resources decided to grant concessions on the maritime terrritories, won against Ukraine at the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, everybody knew that clear data on the offshore oil and gas deposits would be available only four or five years later.

As time went on, companies continued their exploration work and now the time has come for us to learn the true potential of the marine subsoil.

First, the best news comes from ExxonMobil and Petrom, companies which are exploring the offshore Neptun deep water block. The companies drilled the first exploration well in 2012 and concluded that a 48 to 84 billion cubic meter of natural gas deposit could exist under water. This is a quantity that would cover the national gas consumption for seven years. A second exploration well was drilled last year in order to strengthen the results indicating

commercial resources. Gas extraction should start at the end of this decade, if all goes well.

In October 2014, OMV Petrom SA and Exxon Mobil Corp. announced that they had started drilling a new exploration well in the Romanian section of the Black Sea to search for resources that may help the country gain energy independence by 2020.

Petrom, Romania’s largest oil company, said that the Ocean Endeavour rig is drilling the Pelican South-1 well about 155 kilometers offshore. Data from previous drillings of other wells in the Neptun block are “being evaluated,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

“We are encouraged by the good results so far, in both shallow and deep waters,” Gabriel Selischi, member of Petrom’s board responsible for exploration and production, said in the statement. “However, much of the activity in the Black Sea deepwater area is of a frontier, pioneering nature, involving high investment risks and therefore requiring a stable investment framework.”

27

Discoveries in the Black Sea may help Romania, which imports less than 20 percent of its natural gas from Russia, become energy independent by 2020, according to the Energy Department.

Promising blocksYet, not only has the Neptun block a great potential for new discoveries. The Energy Department will focus on the exploration of resources in the Black Sea, where substantial gas deposits have beed discovered. ”Substantial gas deposits have been discovered there and it is our duty to take this seriously. According to our information, other blocks also have natural gas, apart from the Neptun block. We should support exploration and exploatation”, said the Energy Department.

Still, the exploration effort to date in Romania’s Black Sea area has been very modest in comparison to other offshore hydocarbon bearing seas. Usually, explorations blocks wells have a 15-30% chance of succes. This means that about 4 or 5 failed wells have to be drilled for each one that provides a discovery.

A quick comparison to the Gulf of Mexico is vey telling. In the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico over 100,000 exploration wells have been drilled whereas in the shallow waters in all of Bulgaria, Ukraine and Romania combined, only 100 exploration wells have been drilled to date.

Romania and its neighbours are starting to see a dramatic change in activity. It

is anticipated that activity in Romania in particular is finally taking off. It is expected that 11 new exploration wells are to be drilled by the end of this year.

Big dealAnother important company in the Romanian Black Sea, the Canadian company Sterling Resources Ltd., announced that it has entered into an agreement to sell its entire Romanian business to Carlyle International Energy Partners (“CIEP”), an affiliate of The Carlyle Group. The sale includes licence blocks XIII Pelican, XV Midia, EX-25 Luceafarul and EX-27 Muridava, structured as a corporate sale of the Company’s entirely-owned subsidiary Midia Resources SRL, and is expected to be completed around the end of the second quarter of 2015 subject to satisfaction of certain conditions typical for a transaction of this nature, including statutory Romanian approvals and the consent of certain participants in the Romanian concessions.

CIEP will pay a cash consideration of US$42.5 million to Sterling at completion (prior to any Romanian tax liabilities).

Huge costsCommenting on the Romanian sale, Jake Ulrich, Sterling’s Chief Executive Officer said: “Sterling has had a presence in the Romanian Black Sea since 1997. As an operator, we discovered the Ana gas field in 2007 and built up further contingent and prospective resources through further drilling, seismic acquisition and

interpretation, and gaining new licences. While we firmly believe in the significant future potential of these assets, we face material ongoing well commitments on our licences and potentially very high material development costs which are inappropriate for a company of our size. We believe that the full value can only be realized by a company with much greater financial strength and with a longer investment term horizon. We therefore have decided to sell in order to focus on our financial resources in the UK North Sea.”

Sterling holds a 65 percent operated interest in blocks XIII Pelican and XV Midia, a 50 percent operated interest in block 25 Luceafarul, and a 40 percent non-operated interest in block 27 Muridava, all in the Romanian Black Sea.

The Romanian state will auction off concessions for a total of 34 oil and gas concessions this year. The new concessions will be for eight offshore perimeters and 26 onshore perimeters, according to the National Mineral Resources Agency.

“These are all hydrocarbons perimeters. We can’t name their locations yet, but all the details will be provided in the tender specifications” , said representatives of the agency.

28

08THE BLACK SEA CAN BECOME THE NORTH SEA OF SE EUROPESterling has been involved in the drilling of 8 offshore wells (5 as an operator), 5 onshore wells (all as an operator) and has acquired 5,000km2 of 2D data and 2,400km2 of 3D data. Since entering Romania, the company has invested over $100mm. The deal announced with Carlyle is for $42.5mm. In October 2012, it also sold a portion of the Midia Block to Xom/Petrom for $29.5mm.

InterviewWith Mark Beacom, Director General of Midia Resources SRL*

In a recent press release dated March 26, 2015 it was announced that Sterling has sold its business in Romania to the Carlyle Group. Why is Sterling leaving Romania? First, I should make it clear that the completion of this sale to Carlyle is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions including statutory Romanian approvals.

Assuming the transaction completes, Sterling’s decision to exit the region after 18 years was not an easy one. Sterling has been a loyal and proactive investor in Romania commencing in 1997 but the funding requirement for bringing our offshore discoveries to development and continuing an expensive exploration program offshore was simply too large for our company.

Many companies, particularly in the early days of Romania’s Black Sea exploration cycle, have come and gone but Sterling stayed on. Sterling has always believed in Romania and the goal of seeing the Black Sea one day developing like the North Sea. We also believe that Constanta would one

day become the Aberdeen of the Black Sea. It’s unfortunate that Sterling will not be in Romania to witness these achievements, but I believe that Carlyle is the right partner to advance the work Sterling started.

What have Sterling’s accomplishments been in Romania? Up to now, Sterling has been involved in the drilling of 8 offshore wells (5 as an operator), 5 onshore wells (all as an operator) and has acquired 5,000km2 of 2D data and 2,400km2 of 3D data. We made the Ana and Eugenia discoveries offshore and proved up the Doina field through successful appraisal drilling. With the Midia, Pelican, Luceafarul and Muridava Blocks we had the largest number of Blocks in the Romanian Black Sea out of all the companies operating in the region.

The company has also undertaken early stage development activities for its offshore discoveries and was a founding member of RBSTA, the Black Sea Association for Romania.

And what about the “Sterling Scandal”?

29

This was an unfortunate episode, not only for Sterling, but for Romania as well. Accusations of corruption were assumed on the fact that Sterling’s Midia and Pelican Concession was amended from the old EPSA style contract to the new Tax and Royalty Concession Agreement. All the other producers in Romania, at that time, had this new style agreement and it was Sterling alone that still had the old EPSA agreement, which was no longer conforming to the prevailing Petroleum Law.

Once it was amended, accusations were made against certain politicians, Sterling and most regrettably against public servants who were simply doing their job. After investigations carried out by different authorities, including DIICOT, it was determined that the accusations were without merit. As a result, the investigation was closed without any charges, penalties, or other action against Sterling Resources. Unfortunately 3 years had passed before this issue was resolved and certain people lost their jobs and had their reputations tarnished.

Since then, Sterling has maintained a positive professional relationship and efficient cooperation with the relevant agencies and ministries.

How much money has Sterling made in this deal? Since entering Romania we have invested over $100mm. The deal announced with Carlyle is for $42.5mm. In October 2012, we also sold a portion

of the Midia Block to Xom/Petrom for $29.5mm. On this basis, we have not recovered our investment. However, the possibility of contingent payments from the Xom/Petrom sale still exists and may allow for Sterling to get some further recovery on its original investments.

Why sell to Carlyle? Sterling embarked on a fairly public exercise to seek partners to either farm-in, invest or acquire Sterling’s interests in Romania. We started this process in October 2014, and had a number of interested parties come to our data rooms. Many were other oil and gas companies but we also had financial institutions as well. At the end of the day, Carlyle was our best option, and we are satisfied that this was the best outcome for our shareholders.

Who is Carlyle? The Carlyle Group is a global asset manager with about $194 billion of assets under management across 128 funds and 142 fund of funds’ vehicles throughout the world. Carlyle has expertise in many different industries and employs more than 1,650 people in 40 offices across six continents.

The funding for this investment will come from CIEP, a $2.5 billion fund that invests in global oil and gas exploration and production, mid- & downstream, oil field services and refining and marketing in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia.

How will they run the company? Sterling is selling its fully owned

subsidiary, Midia Resources SRL, to CIEP. Midia will become a standalone entity that will be tasked with developing the discoveries in the Black Sea, finding more discoveries on the existing licenses and also seeking other development opportunities in Romania, both onshore and offshore. The company also has the mandate to potentially become a regional player, so although Romania will be the initial focus, other opportunities in the region will be evaluated for investment.

Carlyle will act as the sole shareholder for Midia Resources. The company will be run from Bucharest, and Midia Resources will retain its existing staff and will be seeking to staff up the organization as necessary, given there will be no external organization to provide support as Sterling had once done for Midia. The near term objective is to strengthen the organization in order to accelerate development planning and start producing gas in Romania.

With Carlyle on-board, does this now mean that the Ana and Doina discoveries will be brought forward for development? Certainly financing is a key prerequisite for developing these fields. The Ana and Doina development with the well drilling, offshore platforms, offshore pipelines, gas treatment plant and onshore pipeline will require substantial amounts of capital. With Carlyle’s financial strength, such financing is possible. However, there are still some other issues that need to be addressed before the project can proceed. The project needs to be

Mr Mark Beacom

30

physically connected to the market. The Black Sea coast is some 200kms away of the Isaccea tie-in point of the NTS and some 25kms from the Transit lines. Clearly, the project can only be viable by tying into the Transit lines with a newly constructed access line and then having access to the market whether local or export via these lines. This will require agreements on a number of issues with TransGaz in particular. There are also issues linked to the economic viability of the project, which in turn will depend on gas prices, the level of taxation and the costs to deliver the project. Gas prices and the ability to export are still not fully liberalized and the government is looking to possibly amend the tax and royalty regime in Romania. These uncertainties could delay the ability to launch the project, and if the issues are resolved, but not favourably for the project, then the project might not proceed.

What is your outlook for the Black Sea? I am cautiously optimistic. In order for the Black Sea, or any region to take off, sufficient resources must be discovered there. Many times there is a period of hype about the possibility of resources. This was largely true for shale gas in Poland but also in Romania. I believe we may be at a tipping point where that milestone for the Black Sea may have been reached or is very close to being reached.

Then comes a huge upfront requirement for infrastructure investment. In the North Sea most discoveries are simply tied back to existing infrastructure located

hundreds of kms from the shore. In the Black Sea, the entire infrastructure still needs to be built. It’s not only a matter of economics, although clearly that is essential. Regulatory frameworks, clear environmental processes and conformity to the rule of law are all required. As an industry, we also need some certainty that the tax and royalty rules will be stable and the gas market will be free from political interference.

The development of the Black Sea could have huge rewards for Romania in terms of high quality jobs, creation of local service companies, development of expertise that could be exported around the world, taxes, royalties and energy independence and security. It should not, however, be taken for granted. In order to make this great opportunity a reality, it requires everyone pulling towards the same direction.

* Midia Resources SRL is a fully owned subsidiary of Sterling Resources Ltd and is a long time Concession Owner and Operator in Romania’s Black Sea. On March 26, 2015 Sterling announced the sale of Midia Resources to the Carlyle Group.

The development of the Black Sea could have huge rewards for Romania in terms of high quality jobs, creation of local service companies, development of expertise that could be exported around the world, taxes, royalties and energy independence and security. It should not, however, be taken for granted

31

Bulgaria, Romania and Greece are accelerating their efforts for the construction of the so-called “Vertical Gas Corridor”, after the meeting held between high ranking officials from the three countries, at the end of April. The meeting was held in Sofia and was described as “historical” by Tamenuzhka Petkova, the Energy Minister of Bulgaria, as the project is going to link gas grids of the three EU member states.

Everyone should remember that after the first gas crisis involving a Russia-Ukraine dispute in 2009, Bulgaria has been seeking to diversify its gas flow by building interconnection links with its neighbors. However, none has been finished so far.

More specifically, according to the timetable agreed, the construction of the gas interconnection grid between Bulgaria and Greece will commence in March 2016 and will be completed by the end of 2018. As Bulgaria’s Energy Minister said, under initial plans, the infrastructure was to be in place and become operational sometime in 2018. Petkova added that a joint company has

already been set up to run the project with a capital of 10 million euro.

A first step towards this project was made in December 2014 by the Energy Ministers of the three countries, following the demise of Gazprom’s South Stream gas pipeline, which Russian President Vladimir Putin had scrapped days earlier, during his visit in Turkey. It is estimated that every year the new gas infrastructure could carry between 3-5 bcm of gas from Azerbaijan and from Greece’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.

Tomislav Donchev, Bulgaria’s deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge for economic policies and attended the opening of the event, pointed out that as Europe’s gas map is changing, interconnections with neighbors allow Bulgaria to be ready for “all future scenarios”. “We often talk about diversification and security of supplies. Without real connectedness among neighbors this is just eyewash”, he explained, also stressing that the nascent European Energy Union was “impossible without a network of regional projects”, Focus News Agency quoted him saying.

Separately, Petkova reiterated that Sofia would apply for EU funding (of up to EUR 220 M) to foot the bill for the interconnection with Greece. It is worth recalling that earlier this year, US Secretary of State John Kerry said during his official visit in Bulgaria that he would work to make sure Brussels would provide enough financial assistance for the project, which is of strategic importance for Washington.

As for the link with Romania, where a stalemate was purportedly caused in construction by the damage on the pipes laid under the Danube, Petkova said that a procurement had already been launched to select a company that would carry out repair works. In her words, this interconnector could be ready for use by the end of this year.

09FULL SPEAD AHEAD

WITH THE “VERTICAL GAS CORRIDOR”

Hosted by Bulgaria in the end of April, a “historical” meeting brought together Tamenuzhka Petkova, the Energy Minister of Bulgaria, her Greek counterpart Panagiotis Lafazanis and the Romanian Energy State Secretary, Mihai Albulescu. Further to that meeting, the “Vertical Gas Corridor” seems to be closer than ever.

Geopolitics of energy

32

Tehran is currently producing oil at a pace of 2.7 million bpd; of that, about 1 million barrels are exported. However, if the sanctions are terminated, it is believed that Iran could increase that amount to 3.6 million bpd, in as few as six to 12 months. In fact, it could go beyond 3.6 million bpd, but it would need foreign investment for that to occur. One should remember that Iran has the third largest proven reserves, and a decade ago, it was able to pump 4.5 million bpd and its output peaked at about 6 million bpd in 1974.

In its “Medium-term Oil Market Report 2015”, the IEA suggests that during the following months or years, the world is going to experience a different form of readjustment to the price drop of oil than during previous market cycles. As it points out, “the usual market logic dictates that the deeper and faster a price decline, the stronger the recovery; conversely, the faster a rally, the more severe the inevitable correction”. But in this case, and because of the changed underlying market conditions, “the rebound will be different, because non-OPEC supply has become far more price elastic than in the past, while demand has at the same time become significantly more price inelastic on the downside”.

According to the same report, “the market rebalancing will likely occur relatively swiftly but will be comparatively limited in scope, with prices stabilising at levels higher than recent lows but substantially below the highs of the last three years”. But at the same time, as the IEA admits, there are some crucial and unprojected factors which could change the situation in the global oil market, towards the one

or the other direction –and driving the prices upwards or downwards more aggressively than expected.

One of these factors is Iran. The country with the third largest proven reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (over 150 billion barrels) seems to be on track for a historic deal with the Group of “5+1” countries (the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) regarding its nuclear program. Such a deal would theoretically enable Tehran to return to the global oil market, adding hundreds of thousands of barrels in the supply. “Iran also may be in a position to increase production and exports rapidly if it reached an agreement over its nuclear program with the so-called P5+1, a possibility that is not this Report’s assumption”, as it is pointed out by the IEA.

If oil-related sanctions against Iran are lifted, world oil prices next year could be $5 to $15 per barrel lower than the current forecasts, estimates the US Energy Information Agency. In its latest short-term energy outlook released last week, the agency left its current price forecasts unchanged, putting Brent at $59 this year

10THE IRAN FACTOR IN THE GLOBAL OIL MARKET

Geopolitics of energyGeorge Pavlopoulos

33

and $75 a barrel next year underlining downside risks from Iran’s return. “A lifting of sanctions against Iran, should a comprehensive nuclear agreement be concluded, could significantly change the forecast for oil supply, demand, and prices,” the EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski, said in a statement.

The Agency added that Iran is believed to hold at least 30 million barrels of crude in storage, and that the nation could ramp up crude production by at least 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) by the end of 2016. Most analysts also agree that output

would likely recover next year if, and indeed when, the sanctions are eased.

Of course, despite the framework agreed in Geneva, the deal is not yet completed and the negotiations could still derail until the end of June, when the timeline set by the parties expires. But even if there is a happy end in this story, that doesn’t mean Iran’s immediate return in the oil market, as the other dominant players will try to prevent or to delay such a development, by all means protecting their share in the market.

Indeed, as Andy Tully pointed out in

his analysis on oilprice.com (April 15th), “OPEC doesn’t mean to leave any room for Iranian oil in its current strategy”, ignoring the calls from Tehran to lower the production quotas of its members. This strategy was confirmed last November by the OPEC. Led by Saudi Arabia, the member states of the oil cartel, decided in their milestone meeting, to maintain production at 30 million barrels a day in an effort to win back market share from other producers, mainly US producers of shale oil.

“Even the most conservative OPEC member states do not believe that OPEC production should exceed 30 million barrels per day,” Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh insisted at a news conference in mid April, adding that “we believe that this amount should be cut by at least 5 percent”. One should notice that this amount would be a cut of about 1.5 million barrels per day, leaving enough room for Iranian oil to return, if and when the sanctions are lifted, something that Tehran seems confident will happen pretty soon.

Under the sanctions’ constraints, Iran now produces an estimated 2.7 million barrels of oil per day, and of that, about 1 million barrels are exported. Last month, Zanganeh said that once the sanctions are lifted, Iran is prepared to increase oil production by 1 million barrels per day based on the combined production capacity of oil fields that have been out of use due to the sanctions.

Deals with the West and with China

Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh has been meeting Western oil executives discussing their return into the Iranian oil sector, once sanctions are lifted. The oil majors Zanganeh met in Vienna during his last Opec outing included Italy’s Eni, Royal Dutch Shell and Austrian oil and gas group OMV.

In order to achieve its immediate objectives, Iran is also seeking to resolve differences with Chinese energy companies. Iranian officials were in China last week to discuss Chinese investments in oil and gas developments in Iran, as well as oil sales. Iran also wanted the Chinese companies to use the latest technology and equipment in any resumption of work to get fields pumping, Amir-Hossein Zamaninia, Iran’s deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs

was quoted as saying. The officials were soon followed by a visit to Beijing, the world’s largest crude importer, by Zanganeh, his first since assuming his post two years ago.

This flurry of visits to Beijing from Tehran is to be seen in the backdrop of the fact that some of the enhanced output is expected to come from projects that the Chinese state companies China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) and Sinopec Group have contracted to develop. China’s investments in Iran include projects such as the $4.7 billion development of the giant offshore South Pars gas field and the North Azadegan and Yadvaran oilfields. Activities on these developmental projects were stalled or scaled back in late 2010 as Western sanctions tightened.

34

11THE EASTRING, A NEW GAS PIPELINE FROM WESTERN TO SE EUROPEThe Slovak gas pipeline operator, Eustream, is proposing that a new pipeline be built to carry natural gas from western Europe to the Balkans, relieving the region of its almost total dependence on Russian supply. This is going to be the so-called Eastring.

Geopolitics of energyEmilia Damian

The Eastring project, its backers say, would ensure that countries such as Bulgaria and Serbia can receive gas even if Russian supplies via Ukraine are disrupted. The Slovak operator proposes that gas be piped from western European hubs via Slovakia’s existing system into Ukraine and then into Romania and on to Bulgaria.

The proposed 570-kilometre Eastring project would have the ability to transport gas either from Russia to the Balkans, or from the West to the Balkans, Eustream Chairman Tomas Marecek told Reuters.

It would cost an estimated 750 million euros and connect Eustream’s existing system -- which has a capacity of more than 80 bcm -- to Ukraine’s under-utilised Soyuz pipeline leading to the Romanian border, Marecek said.

The plan would include a leg to be built across Romanian in order to connect to a major Balkan pipeline running close to the Black Sea to supply the region, he said, adding that financing would depend on the final set-up and route, if adopted. “Economically and

strategically it is best solution for this part of Europe”, Marecek added.

“It could transport gas in both directions, provide the region with an alternative route and gas sources and at the same time it will utilise existing gas infrastructures in the region”, the official added. “Only then will we discuss with the EU. We want to be well prepared for discussions.”

Russia has halted gas flows to Ukraine three times in the past decade, in 2006, 2009 and since June last year, although this year gas supply for the EU via Ukraine has not been disrupted.

EU rulesStill, European Union nations are wary of the $40 billion project which foes say would entrench Russia’s energy stranglehold on eastern Europe. Marecek said the Eastring proposal would fully comply with EU energy regulations.

“The corridor would also be ready for future gas imports to western Europe from alternative sources such as the Caspian Sea, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel and Cyprus”, he said.

35

The Eastring pipeline, whose initial capacity of 20 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year should grow to 40 billion cubic metres, should be put into commercial operation in late 2018. The length of the pipeline, depending on its final routing, will be between 744 and 1,015 kilometres. Capital expenditures for the first phase of the project are estimated at between €1.14 billion and €1.52 billion.

The sources of natural gas for the bidirect-ional Eastring should be Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Cyprus or Western Europe.

Hungary, Romania, BulgariaSlovakia’s gas transmission company Eustream has said it expects to sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on the construction of the Eastring gas pipeline with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the near future.

Slovak news agency TASR quoted Eustream spokesman Vahram Chuguryan as saying the four countries have already set up working groups comprising officials of their respective gas transportation systems.

The memoranda should contain basic parameters of the future participation of the countries in the project, Chuguryan said.

Slovakia has proposed Eastring as an option for diversifying gas supply infrastructure in Europe. Under the proposal, the Eastring is to carry gas from the Slovak-Ukrainian border to the Bulgarian-Turkish border, opening opportunities for gas supplies to Bulgaria from Northern and Western Europe.

The Eastring could also be connected to a potential gas hub in Turkey, enabling reverse-flow supplies from the Caspian basin, Iraq, Iran, and the Eastern Mediterranean.

According to Eustream Director General Rastislav Nukovic, the Eastring construction could be funded from three main sources - a consortium of companies from Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia; the European Union; and the European Investment Bank or commercial banks.

The length of the proposed pipeline could be between 744 and 1,015 kilometres depending on the selected route.

“The corridor would also be ready for future gas imports to western Europe from alternative sources such as the Caspian Sea, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel and Cyprus” - Tomas Marecek, Eustream Chairman

“The Eastring construction could be funded from three main sources - a consortium of companies from Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia” - Rastislav Nukovic, Eustream Director General

36

12EXPENSIVE GAS IS UNBEARABLE FOR THE GREEK ECONOMY The price of gas in Greece remains one of the highest in Europe and adds significant weight to an extremely weak economy. Thus, the voices calling on the government to reduce the excise duty and increase competition are constantly increasing, arguing that this would have a beneficial effect by creating thousands of jobs and GDP growth.

OverviewPenelope Mitroulia

“Reduce the excise duty on natural gas to increase the country’s GDP by 750 million euros and employment by 12,500 jobs”.

“Open the gas market, which continues to operate with an unacceptable monopolistic structure, leading the Greeks to pay for the fuel more expensive than most other Europeans”.

These two messages are coming from different directions but are exhortations the adoption of which is estimated to lead to the same goal: To reduce the price of natural gas on the Greek market, which remains among the highest in the European Union and are necessary to reduce the total energy costs for both businesses and consumers and to strengthen the competitiveness of the Greek economy.

On one side the Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research (IOBE), with a study recently published urged the government to reduce the specific gas excise taxes as low as possible based on the data of the European legislation. On the other hand, the European Union’s General Directorate for Competition, as

shown by placing executives during an informational seminar held recently in Brussels, considers that the major cause of maintaining the high gas prices on the Greek market is caused by the absence of effective competition at a retail level.

It is significant that despite the decrease by about 15%, of the price of Russian natural gas reached by DEPA and Gazprom in February 2014 further to long and arduous negotiations, according to the IOBE, on the Greek market the fuel price for large consumers before tax remains 24% higher than the EU average, while the final price (excluding VAT and other recovered taxes) is higher by 33%.

We call to mind that last February’s agreement provided a discount of 15% compared to the gas price from Gazprom at the time. So the $ 465 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas, which was the average price in 2013, after the reduction, the average price stood at $ 395.

Moreover based on last year’s figures from Eurostat, the pre-tax prices for households was 58.3 EUR/ MWh

37

(seventh behind Spain) and 43.6 EUR/ MWh (first) for the industries. It should also be noted that the Greek market has adopted the highest tax rate, which reaches 5.4 EUR/ MWh for industries, when the EU average is 0.5 EUR/ MWh.

The study by the IOBEAs stated in the study by the IOBE, when compared to the neighbouring Bulgaria, prices in Greece for companies is 42% higher, while the difference to Turkey reaches 72%.

The imposition of excise duty on natural gas occured at a time when the impact of the crisis was particularly unfavorable or the Greek industry and much more for energy producing industries, which together show plummeting sales and severe damages.

As noted in the study, the excise duty on natural gas was applied in Greece after 1.9.2011. The rate was set at 1.5 EUR per GJ of Joint Calorific Value (5,4 € / MWh) for all uses. The level of the coefficient is ten times more than the minimum set by Directive 2003/96 / EC on the thermal business use and five times over the minimum rate for non-business use.

The tax basis of the tax calculation includes gas consumption for non-energy purposes (as raw material for the industry), which is not however in Directive 2003/96, as well as the natural gas consumption in power production, which according to the Directive are not obliged to be imposed

to excise duty and are exempted in the majority of the EU Member States.

Greece, after the calculations of exemptions, reductions and tax refunds in other Member States of the EU, has one of the highest excise duty rates on natural gas for business thermal use in the EU-28. The excise tax is about 12% of the price paid by Greek companies with high natural gas consumption.

Moreover, the natural gas import cost in Greece is among the highest in the EU and with the excise tax it drives all final purchase prices for companies in Greece at a high level in all consumption categories. The negative impacts on the industry by imposing excise duty are quite important (increased production costs, reduced competitiveness for internationally traded goods, reduction in profits, investments, loss of job positions and the GDP, continuance of use of other more polluting fuels, cease and/ or relocation to neighboring countries with lower energy costs, etc.).

As noted in the study, the industry (energy and non-energy use) is the second largest consumer of natural gas in Greece after electric power generation. Thus, the majority of its revenue from the excise tax derives from the electric power production sector, with the industry to follow. It is estimated that in 2014, the revenue from excise duty on electricity production was reduced by approximately 40% due to a similar decline in production of the natural gas units. Overall, the revenues from excise

duty on natural gas for 2014 is estimated to have been reduced by about 25% in comparison to the previous year.

Given the conditions and restrictions on the formation of natural gas prices, a direct solution for the reduction of energy costs for Greek companies, according to the IOBE, would be the adjustment of excise duties to the minimum possible levels set by the Community law. The reduction of excise duty on natural gas would improve pricing capabilities of Greek enterprises and will help maintain their production capacity until domestic demand will strengthen. Therefore, the integration of the reduction of the excise duty on the prices of products will improve the competitiveness of domestic production, with broader positive effects on the total of the economy. Reducing the prices of domestic products would lead to an increase in domestic demand and exports and could reverse the negative impact on the economic activity and employment from its application until today.

In particular, the study assessed the impact on the Greek economy of: • The reduction in excise duty for thermal business use to the minimum level set by Directive 2003/96/EC, ie. from 1,5 to 0,15 € / GJ GCV and simultaneously,

• The exemption of excise duty on natural gas used for electricity production as defined in Art. 14 par. 1 of the same Directive.

It is estimated that the adjustment of

38

the excise duty on natural gas could increase the GDP by 754 million EUR and employment by creating 12,500 jobs. A significant part of this effect derived from the abolition of excise duty on natural gas in electricity generation, because the electricity supply cost affects all sectors of economic activity. The contribution from the reduction of excise duty on natural gas for the industry (energy and non-energy use) is also significant, and despite the fact that the reduction is lower, the industrial sector has strong multiplier effects. Lastly, according to estimates presented in the study, the reduction of the rate would lead to a reduction of revenues from excise duties. However, the total net revenue from taxes and social security contributions will ultimately become positive, due to the rise in economic activity.

The adaptation of the Greek economy into a standard of extrovert and sustainable development requires, inter alia, targeted interventions on business taxation. The reduction of excise duty on natural gas, possibly together with other interventions towards alleviating energy costs for the Greek companies, is also added to this framework and is expected to significantly boost the Greek economy without jeopardising the effort to maintain a fiscal balance, concludes the study by the IOBE.

General Directorate of CompetitionMoreover according to the EU’s General Directorate for Competition, “the reasons why the prices on the Greek natural gas

market are among the highest in Europe are associated to the closed structure of the market”. As a member of the General Directorate stated, speaking at a special seminar in Brussels, “we had agreed with the previous government to break the monopoly of the three Gas Providing Companies. That bill was not passed due to the country’s general elections, and we have no information up to this point from the new government on the matter. As far as we are concerned, the case still remains open”.

It must be noted that DEPA controls 90% of the wholesale and 51% of the retail market as a major shareholder of the three Gas Providing Companies. According to the EU’s General Directorate for Competition, “the three Gas Providing Companies of Attica, Thessaloniki and Thessaly, retain a monopoly right for the supply and distribution of natural gas, by exception from the Community legislation. If the Greek Government wants to comply with the EU legislation, it should proceed with the ownership separation the three Gas Providing Companies and offer access of third parties in the supply sector as it was agreed”.

Based on last year’s figures from Eurostat, the pre-tax prices for households was 58.3 EUR/ MWh (seventh behind Spain) and 43.6 EUR/ MWh (first) for the industries. It should also be noted that the Greek market has adopted the highest tax rate, which reaches 5.4 EUR/ MWh for industries, when the EU average is 0.5 EUR/ MWh

39

13DRIVING ON CNG:

GREECE HAS ITS OWN SUCCESS STORY...

Greece is also among the European countries where driving on compressed natural gas (CNG) is constantly increasing, with a more integrated institutional framework and an infrastructure network that is continuously expanding to meet the increased needs of individuals and professionals throughout the country.

Oil & Gas

In Europe, natural gas stations have reached the number of 4501 in order to meet the demand of 1,899,602 vehicles operating on natural gas on the streets of European cities. Our neighbouring country of Italy currently has 1040 refuelling stations, where Germany has 920, Austria 180, Bulgaria 110 and France 310. However, other countries that are making rapid growth in sales levels and terms of infrastructure expansion have also turned towards natural gas, a development that is also due to the promotion of government grants and incentives. To a rather large extent, Greece is based on initiatives and actions of certain operators which invest in infrastructures in order to ensure the country’s undisturbed supply.

In Greece, DEPA in order to open the CNG market, with FISIKON (the tradename of natural gas for vehicular traffic) is creating infrastructures and implementing strategic partnerships, aiming at reasonably priced, safe and environmentally friendly fuel to make its presence felt on the Greek roads.

As we all know, the FISIKON natural

gas stations cover many areas in Central and Northern Greece allowing for the uninterrupted supply of vehicles moving on the Athens -Central Greece -Thessaloniki road axis. Seven stations are already operating (with the station of Volos being the new addition of the network) and shortly the broader area of Lamia will be served by the new station scheduled to operate at the point of the National Road.

The demand for factory-built natural gas vehicles has led the automotive industry to build new models thus leading to a wide range of each category being put on the market by the largest authorised car dealers.

Whether this concerns economical solutions or luxury options, the companies are offering the most famous models in CNG versions while actions are also taken by companies which did not have any available natural gas options until now. One of these is the Audi, which is circulating the new Audi A3 Sportback g-tron in Greece while tested models are still available such as those offered for some

40

time now by Mercedes-Benz, FIAT, Volkswagen, Opel and Seat.

As expected, the increase in natural gas vehicles circulation requires an adequate network of infrastructures, which is now successfully being broadened by DEPA. Thus, dual fuel cars (whether factory manufactured natural gas models or conventional converted vehicles) with the existence of broadened supply network ensuring that they are able to cover the Athens-Thessaloniki route with autonomy without having to use gasoline (or diesel).

Strong penetration into ItalyAccording to the Italian Association of Automobile Manufacturers, CNG holds 5.3% of total sales of new vehicles on the Italian market and disposes Europe’s largest market in alternative fuels with natural gas playing a key role. Over 880,000 natural gas vehicles are circulating on the Italian roads. The development of CNG in Italy began very early (in 1970) and the parallel development of dual fuel vehicle market and the supply network contributed

to this, while the use of natural gas in private small and medium-sized cars began being very popular during the 1990’s with the manufacturing of natural gas models.

The rapid development of CNG in Italy was caused by two reasons: the reduced natural gas tax and the government subsidy programs for converting conventional vehicles to dual fuel ones (gasoline/ other fuel and natural gas). This resulted in an increase by 68% in the number of vehicles powered by natural gas while during the period from 2008 to 2010 (a time period during which subsidies were in force) the number of refuelling stations doubled across the country. As for the supply network, this includes a total of 1060 stations and monthly sales of natural gas as a motor fuel amounting to 80 million cubic meters, which is enhanced by the favourable taxation of “green fuel” compared to gasoline and in accordance with the current prices, the use of natural gas when driving achieves 64% in cost saving compared to gasoline and 57% compared to diesel.

The Czech RepublicAccording to the Czech Gas Association, in 2014, 2,000 vehicles powered by natural gas were added to the existing fleet and in the entire country there are 8,500 vehicles circulating on natural gas. It is very important that professional natural gas vehicles (vans) are used by enterprises and institutions such as the Czech Post as businesses and institutions receive incentives for the utilisation of “green” fuel. The Government subsidizes the use of natural gas by the public transport sector (in total 40 million Euros were allocated), and thus the central cities and other regions were able to implement measures to reduce emissions from public transportation means (500 natural gas buses are already circulating on the streets the country while another 300 will soon be added to the fleet thanks to the subsidy).

Of course, the attempt to broaden the use of natural gas in the transport sector is also supported by the development of a refuelling network. In 2014, 25 new filling stations were built and amount to 75 in total, while in

41

2015 at least another 12 are planned to be created. In 2014 the monthly sales of natural gas as a motor fuel, doubled compared to 2012 and increased by 36 % in comparison to 2013. In the Czech Republic as well as in other European countries the price of CNG is competitive and enables cost saving by 50% compared to the already known conventional fuels (gasoline, diesel).

A turn in Spain as wellMeasures and government subsidies in Spain managed to double the number of the country’s natural gas vehicles during the last seven years. The Spanish government has recently announced a replacement program for old commercial use vehicles with natural gas ones while the regional authorities subsidize the use of natural gas with special programs. The refuelling network is expanded with the creation of eight new LNG stations in the two coming years at key locations throughout the country while another 9 have been scheduled until 2020. It is also interesting that forecasts for the use of natural gas by truck fleets estimate that until 2028 5,000 trucks will also be powered by the “green fuel”.

In the strategy of promoting CNG major automobile industries are also involved such as Seat, Volkswagen-Audi Spain and Madrileña Red de Gas, which recently signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly promote the use of natural gas and also contribute to the expansion of infrastructures across the country. The program includes the development of new refuelling stations

and implementing subsidy programs towards the companies and operators that dispose commercial fleets. However, the public sector also makes extensive use of natural gas, since 1500 buses and 1100 garbage collection trucks in large cities run on natural gas.

For example, in Madrid, 470 garbage collection trucks are powered by natural gas and 40% of the public transport sector (800 buses out of the 2000 in total circulating in the country). The Government achieves significant cost saving and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions while the noise levels are also reduced. The cost saving compared to the current prices of conventional fuels reaches 50%, while regarding infrastructures, there are 90 refuelling stations operating in Spain.

In Europe, natural gas stations have reached the number of 4501 in order to meet the demand of 1,899,602 vehicles operating on natural gas on the streets of European cities. Our neighbouring country of Italy currently has 1040 refuelling stations, where Germany has 920, Austria 180, Bulgaria 110 and France 310

42

14A SINGLE EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEMThe European Commission plans to harmonise the energy systems of its member states. Theoretically, the benefits are huge. But there are also many barriers that must be overcome. Is it possible, and how soon can this happen?

OverviewAda Gavrilescu

A European Energy Union will ensure secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy for citizens and businesses. Using energy more wisely and fighting climate change is not only an investment in our children’s future, it will also create new jobs and growth. This is what Vice-President of the European Commission Maros Sefcovic said when he presented this project in February 2015.

“Important groundwork has already been done: we have a policy framework for energy and climate for 2030, an energy security strategy is in place, and an integrated energy market for all EU countries is closer than ever before”, he said.

The Energy Union means making energy more secure, affordable and sustainable, Sefcovic added. It will allow a free flow of energy across borders and a secure supply in every EU country, for every citizen. New technologies and renewed infrastructure will cut household bills and create new jobs and skills, as companies expand exports and boost growth. It will lead to a sustainable, low carbon and environmentally friendly economy, putting Europe at the forefront

of renewable energy production and the fight against global warming.

Huge barriersBut, as the European Commission sets out its plans to harmonise the energy systems of member states, despite the potential benefits there remain huge barriers to success.

An energy union would involve sweeping changes to the way energy systems currently work, said an article in The Guardian, analizing the proposals.

“Proposals by the European Commission to bring together the energy systems of member states into a single ‘Energy Union’ represent the most ambitious attempt to date at harmonising energy networks across borders. But the plans face serious obstacles, practical and political, and could take decades to come to fruition”, journalists from the Guardian wrote.

The prospect of an energy union is a tantalising one, bringing potential benefits such as cost savings, greater energy efficiency, lower carbon dioxide emissions, and far greater resilience

43

in the face of threats to energy supply, from weather and natural disasters to technology failings and the geopolitics affecting fuel imports from unstable or unfriendly regions.

Long discussionsThe energy union has been under discussion for more than a decade, with successive national governments and European commissioners debating how such a system could be made to work in practice. On the face of it, the signs are good.

The technology to achieve union is mostly available though not implemented yet, from large-scale interconnectors and pipelines that could be built to carry electricity and fuels across long distances, and better energy storage hardware, to the software needed to make power grids “smart” and

to manage energy demand on the consumer side. Most business groups, consumer representatives and political parties officially welcome the concept.

But there are fierce disagreements over the details of what it would involve that risk leaving the ambitions stranded in a bureaucratic quagmire.

Energy supplies are spread unevenly across Europe: oil and gas are predominantly in the North Sea, accessible only to the UK and the non-EU member Norway; coal is more widespread, with fields in Germany and eastern Europe, but varying in quality; hydro-power plants supply clean and cheap power in Nordic countries, but are seasonally influenced; renewables are spread across Europe, with a high proportion of solar power in Germany and wind in Spain; France gets the vast majority of its power from nuclear reactors.

No single gridThese disparate systems are not well-integrated. Transporting energy – whether in the form of electricity or fuel – across long distances is difficult and costly. There is no single European grid, and there are few interconnectors to bring power from where it is generated to where it is needed. New pipelines carrying fuel from Russia, the middle East and other regions are also likely to be needed, and the infrastructure for gas deliveries is grossly under-developed compared with pent-up demand.

An energy union could solve many of these problems, for instance

with key infrastructure such as new interconnectors, pipelines, and updated grid technology. If power was able to move more freely across borders and long distances, this could bring efficiencies and economies of scale, and also harmonise prices for consumers, which vary widely across member states.

Member states are close to their energy companies, most of which were or are still state-owned, and see control over energy supply – and to some extent, prices - as vital planks of national policy. They are reluctant to give up such powers, so the commission’s proposals must carefully skirt national sensitivities – for instance, avoiding the impression of dictating how states organise their energy mix. Energy companies are also comfortable with arrangements that let them cater differently to national markets, with a wide range of pricing structures to maximise profits.

EU energy ministers will formally take a position at the Luxembourg energy council on 11-12 June.

“An energy security strategy is in place, and an integrated energy market for all EU countries is closer than ever before” - Vice-President of the European Commission Maros Sefcovic

“The plan faces serious obstacles, practical and political, and could take decades to come to fruition” – The Guardian

44

15MIND THE (TARIFF) GAP IN BULGARIASomewhere between 200 and 300 mln. euros annually, is the calculated amount of the tariff gap that has been plaguing the Bulgarian energy system for several years now. It is due to a mismatch between the regulated energy prices and the real cost of electricity production. The gap has been piled up at the expense of the National Electricity Company (NEK), the single buyer of electricity for households and small businesses in Bulgaria. In the second half of 2014 NEK was losing between 12 and 17 euro for every MWh it sold to the regulated market.

Electricity - OverviewNikolay Jekov

The snowball slowly grew into an avalanche. The loss of 200-300 million euros is approximately equivalent to 30% of NEK’s annual sells and the reason the NEK is still alive is its policy to cut down payments to the electricity producers. As a result, it owes them more than €500 mln; in addition the NEK was forced to resort to its parent company to ask for money – the Bulgarian Energy Holding to pay other €130 mln. to some of the energy companies which threatened to sue.

The formal reason for the gap is the desire to keep prices low, but the actual reason is the wrong investment and policy decisions made by several governments. Bulgarian policy makers have introduced lavish subsidies for the renewable energy and cogeneration production (heat and electricity). Because of the wrong forecasts by part of the NEK on the future consumption of electricity, the company signed several long-term Power Purchasing Agreements (PPA) to guarantee the construction of new power plants. The local consumption, however, is not rising and the wholesale electricity prices in the region are nowhere near their peak in 2006-2008, effectively cutting one of the possibilities to subsidies the domestic market with the profits from the exports.

The fix has been known for several years – curtailing the ineffective cogeneration producers, reform of the renewable energy market and renegotiation of the NEK’s long term Power Purchasing Agreements, leading to liberalization of the market and further privatization on the long term. But no government in the recent years was able to take effective and long-lasting measures.

In the last several months, however, a part of these measures is becoming a reality. The recently changed Energy law introduced several new policies.

No new subsidiesThere will be no subsidies for new renewable energy projects in Bulgaria, stipulate the amendments to the Energy law. The only exception is for small biomass projects.

The formal reason for the new policy is the overshooting of the EU 2020 renewable energy goals. Bulgaria already met them in 2013. The statistics are questionable, because, while good on paper, the achievement is based on the extensive use of wood for heating needs in Bulgaria. It forms 68% of the renewable energy usage. The renewable electricity production in 2012 was 16.7% from the final electricity

45

consumption, i.e, not exceeding the 20% goal for 2020, and is mainly due to the large legacy hydro power plants. The use of wood is not due to a special policy, but is rather a result of the difficult economic situation of many households in the country. The inflated statistic, however, is used by the government to cool off the renewable market.

The growing costs of renewable and cogeneration production and the expenditures on the long-term PPAs, all of which are supported by the state, the electricity surcharge for businesses is currently €10 per megawatt-hour, while the households surcharge is approximately €20 per megawatt-hour. The surcharge more than doubled in the last three years. According to data by the NEK, in 2014 the company had to buy 3.8 TWh of green energy for €549 mln.

Another policy shift is the redirection of the proceeds from the state owned CO2 quotas sales. From now on they will be used to cover for part of the renewable energy cost. For 2015, it is expected that Bulgaria will be able to auction quotas for 100 mln. Euros which might reduce the green energy costs by nearly 20%.

One very controversial step is the curtailment of the so-called ineffective cogenerations. Combined production of heat and electricity in Bulgaria is supported by various schemes –feed-in-tariffs and the requirement that all electricity is purchased. In order to be eligible for such support, an installation needs to save at least 10% of the primary

fuel used in its combined production cycle. However, many plants sneaked under this requirement claiming that their effective installations could not work without their ineffective ones. And as a result, there were certain cogenerations whose effective production was less than 10% of their output, but the NEK was obliged to buy their electricity.

Over the years, with the increase of natural gas prices, the electricity produced from the cogen plants became very expensive. Additionally, the authorities decided to freeze the price of heating in order not to burden the many households relying on the central heating system. The lost revenues were compensated with higher electricity prices of the cogen plants.

From now on, the ineffective producers could sell their electricity on the free market only, relieving the NEK from the burden to buy that energy. Two plants already announced they might have to close down, threatening hundreds of jobs being lost, but the annual savings for the consumers could reach €50 mln.

Renegotiations of the PPAsThe last and most difficult part of the government’s reform plan is the renegotiations of the long-term Power Purchasing Agreements with AES and CounturGlobal. AES built a new TPP on a green field, while Enel (later the investment was sold to CounturGlobal) modernized an existing TPP. In order to guarantee their investments, the NEK signed PPA contracts with AES in 2001 and with Enel in 2003.

The 15-year PPA’s have a notional value of approximately €8 billion and when they were signed they seemed more or less reasonable (especially the one with Enel). Later on, the forecast for significant growth of the electricity consumption in Bulgaria and increase of the electricity prices proved to be overoptimistic. As a result, the NEK was forced to pay above market price for the electricity produced by TPP AES Galabovo and TPP CountourGlobal Maritza Iztok 3.

Talks were launched in 2012, but did not grow into negotiations, because the Bulgarian state wanted a significant electricity price decrease without offering something in return. Finally, the negotiations started at the end of 2014, and the memorandum of understanding was signed in April 2015. AES and ContourGlobal agreed to cut their guaranteed capacity payments by 14 and 13% respectively, in exchange for NEK making about €358 million in late payments by July. According to the Bulgarian Energy minister, this will save NEK €51 million annually, although independent analysis shows lower figures.

There is a chance that these measures might bridge the tariff gap in the NEK to a negligible extent. It could be closed if the business begins to pay higher electricity surcharge, but there is strong opposition. Even though the gap will still be out there, the steps taken so far are nothing but a modest beginning for more serious reforms in the Bulgarian energy sector.

46

16END OF THE ERA OF LOW ELECTRICITY PRICES IN SERBIAIncreasing the regulated price of electricity for households remains crucial for the long-term sustainability of the EPS1, experts say. It is, however, only one feature of the restructuring process, which includes increasing efficiency and cutting costs, workforce downsizing and improving collections.

Electricity - OverviewStevan Veljovic

Only two months after the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund approved a €1.2 billion three-year precautionary loan for Serbia, the obligations regarding the energy sector seem to be looser than initially expected.

Key public utities in the energy sector, EPS and Srbijagas, according to the arrangement approved in February, must undergo financial and corporate restructuring. In the case of EPS, this included the agreement to raise regulated electricity prices, while introducing an excise tax for electricity. Combined, these two measures would increase the price of electricity by 15 per cent, as of April 1, 2015, with additional adjustments to follow in 2016, if necessary.

However, the utility is yet to submit the request for price alterations to the Energy agency, a regulatory body, delaying the price hike for the consumers.

Aleksandar Vucic, the Serbian prime minister, hinted that the Government will try to persuade the IMF to lower the increase percentage, since the fiscal

deficit in the first quarter was RSD 21,5 billion [€179 million], less than a half of the projected amount. “The IMF insisted on fiscal consolidation, requirements have been fully met, and not only that - we have achieved much better results than expected“, Vucic stated.

The implementation of the agreement, including the increase in the price of electricity, will be discussed during the arrangement’s first revision in May.

Low price impeding investmentsDaehang Kim, the Resident Representative of the IMF for Serbia said that the restructuring of EPS is more important than an electricity price increase, which is only a part of the reorganization of this public enterprise.

Ljubodrag Savic, professor at the Economics faculty in Belgrade, believes that the IMF is ready to discuss its directive again, following the unexpectedly low deficit in the first quarter of the year. “If the idea was to divert part of the money to the budget by introducing excise, and now we have savings of RSD 34 billion [€283

47

million], there must be some space to negotiate”, he added.

Regarding the future of the EPS, Savic believes that “it is still necessary to adjust the regulated price – currently the lowest in the region - to the market level, while ensuring aid to protect the socially vulnerable”. “Having in mind the need to build new production capacities, it would be better if the money from the price increase would go to EPS, not to the budget, through excises. However, the best way to ensure that the money would be used for investment will be to establish a fund for this purpose”, he noted.

The analysis of the Fiscal council, an independent body charged with assessing fiscal policy, published in July 2014, shows that the level of EPS’s revenues is not enough not only for investments in new power plants, but also for servicing their liabilities. This raises concerns over possible fiscal costs of loan repayment in the future, in which case the budget would have to pay for these liabilities.

The reason for low revenues is twofold: first, the high percentage of uncollected debts and second, the low regulated electricity price for households. The Fiscal council also suggested that the price of electricity increase by 15 per cent, while ensuring that some sort of relief is provided for low-revenue households. They also cautioned for the imbalances on the expenditure side. Almost one third of EPS’s expenditures

in 2013 were spent on salaries, due to an excessive workforce of more than 38,000 employees.

The financial problems are even highlighted when EPS operates with a nominal profit. In 2013, despite a profit of RSD 19 billion [€165 million], the EPS liquidity did not allow it to pay the share of annual profit to the budget.

Slobodan Ruzic, director of Energy Saving Group, a consultancy, said that a loser look on the EPS profit shows it does not reflect its operations, and speaks even less about the sustainability of its business. “It usually only means that the winter was mild and the imports were low, with good hydrology during the year. All this is often followed with

a lack of investment, including the necessary maintenance of the existing facilities”, he explained.

In 2014, floods and other natural disasters that struck Serbia had a significant negative impact on EPS’s performance. “This will be reflected in the operations results in 2015, and it should be noted that the World Bank estimated the flood damage at around €500 million”, the company said.

Moreover, since January, 1, 2015, following a three-year transitional period, EPS now operates on a completely liberalized market. With low regulated price for households, EPS easily kept the consumers, however without the possibility to increase its revenues.

Ruzic noted that both factors, the price and the collections, are affecting EPS’s results, noting the company itself is mostly responsible for low collection of claims. What differentiates the present EPS management from their predecessors is the fact that they are not even fighting for the affordable price of electricity.

“On the contrary, they are competing with politicians in statements saying they haven’t sought for a price increase, nor that it is necessary. And all of this is occurring at a time when the company is recovering from the damages it suffered in last year’s floods and when they have to receive the loan from the World Bank in order to pump the water from the Kolubara coal mine”, Ruzic insisted.

The implementation of the agreement with the IMF, including the increase in the price of electricity, will be discussed during the arrangement’s first revision in May

Aleksandar Vucic Ljubodrag Savic Slobodan Ruzic

48

Cutting expendituresThe financial difficulties of EPS were also recognized by the IMF. The arrangement provided that Serbia will prepare a financial restructuring plan based on improved collections, increased efficiency, costs savings, and tariff increases. Previously, a corporate restructuring plan had been adopted, focusing on streamlining the organizational structure and staff rightsizing, in order to avoid the need for state aid towards EPS in the future.

The first stage of the corporatization process should end by July, 1, while by 2016, EPS should be transformed into a joint-stock company. The first stage will include greater integration of EPS and reducing the number of companies from currently 14 to only 3. This would be achieved by integrating all production companies within the EPS system and merging the five distribution enterprises into one distribution system operator. The third entity will be EPS Supply, charged with the public supply of electricity. In addition, EPS will keep its subsidiary company EPS Trgovanje in Slovenia, established to ensure more

favorable conditions for trade with the EU countries.

The corporate restructuring plan, adopted by the Government, will be implemented by the new body, the Board of executive directors, consisting of EPS general manager, Aleksandar Obradovic and seven more members.

The expected reorganization outcome is a clear system of responsibility within the company, while removing numerous irrational expenditures caused by the multiplication of processes. “The same paperwork is now being done 14 times, while it would be normal to be done only once, at the level of the entire system. We estimate that unification of management in the domain of finance, legal issues, IT, public procurement, human resources and public relations, will bring annual savings of €36 million”, EPS said.

However, some experts remain sceptic about the anticipated results of the reorganization process, in the existing managerial framework, with significant political control over the company.

Government agreed to seek minority private investment participation that could further enhance the viability of the company and ensure its professional management. The restructuring process will be prepared in close consultation with the World Bank and the EBRD

49

Slobodan Ruzic said it’s a serious fallacy if anyone believed that EPS would operate better just because the managers of subsidiaries will report directly to the general manager of EPS.

“The general manager is also chosen by the Government, or the political elite. Even if they manage to abolish some of the 600 managerial functions, as they promised to, this will open the same number or even more unnecessary jobs for advisors”, he said.

He insisted that the “mist” referred to as the ‘corporatization of EPS’ is not a prerequisite for streamlining EPS. “It is the willingness of the political elite to withdraw entirely from running EPS, from employment and personnel policies, through a pricing policy, to the ways of distribution and money spending. Such intentions were not demonstrated in the last 15 years, and I don’t see any indication it might occur in the near future”, he said.

Restructuring firstFollowing the restructuring processes and financial stabilization, the

Government agreed to seek minority private investment participation that could further enhance the viability of the company and ensure its professional management. The restructuring process will be prepared in close consultation with the World Bank and the EBRD2 which will continue to be implemented through 2016 and 2017.

Ruzic believes that Serbia would benefit from the introduction of a minority partner, not only because of the additional funds it would bring to the budget. The introduction of minority or majority partner, in his opinion, would be conditioned with broad managerial rights, thus emphasizing the need for increased efficiency. “This would be beneficial for the efficiency of EPS operations and its development. In NIS, we have a good example on how the business of a company can change”, he said, adding that he doesn’t believe there is a political will for such a move.

Savic, however, argued that the State should try to keep the ownership of EPS, while trying to make decisions like

a private owner would. This includes increasing the price of electricity, letting redundant workers go, appointing professional managers and focusing on the modernization of technology. “A private owner would not invest in building new production capacities, because it requires decades for the return of the investment”, he said, adding that this is why maintaining state ownership is important.

Ruzic, on the other hand, confessed that, unlike 10 or 20 years ago, he no longer believes that there is a critical mass of expertise and political sense to run EPS efficiently and to keep it in the ownership of the State. “Time and events proved me wrong. Today, I’m afraid that the delay of discussions about privatization will only lead to a further reduction of EPS’s value and that the privatization would occur at a less favorable moment”, he concluded.

1 - Elektroprivreda Srbije 2 - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

50

17BRITISH INTEREST FOR THE ROMANIAN ENERGY MARKETBritish energy companies have already declared their interest to invest in Romania’s energy sector, as new resources are about to be confirmed in the Black Sea region. But what about the conditions these companies are going to face in the country? Are they favourable for new investments?

OverviewAda Gavrilescu

The representatives taking part in the two-day British mission in Romania have outspoken their interest in investing here in projects in the nuclear field and also in oil and natural gas exploitation projects, all the more as new resources are about to be confirmed in the Black Sea perimeter, stated the Ministry of Energy.

The Ministry of Energy, Small and Middle-Sized Enterprises and the Business Milieu, Andrei Gerea, together with the representatives of the other institutions and companies subordinated to the Ministry, had a working meeting with the delegation of the British economic mission in the field of energy in March.

“In his message delivered in the opening discussions, the Minister of Energy, Andrei Gerea, wanted to salute the British businessmen’s interest in the business opportunities offered by Romania and highlighted the role of a regional hub and supplier of energy security Romania hopes to be able to play in the near future in the Central and South East Europe. Moreover, the Minister indicated the governmental measures supporting the investors and showed the role they played

in improving the business climate.”

Nuclear safetyThe representatives of the Romanian side presented data related to the companies subordinated to the Ministry of Energy, their shareholding structure, the situation of their stock exchange listings, as well as the situation of companies subjected to such restructuring and privatisation plans.

Besides the interest shown by the British side in investment projects in the field of energy, discussions also focused on the safety of the Romanian nuclear installations, but also on the manner in which the population regards such investments in this field, in the context in which at the European level discussions are currently rather polarised on this topic.

Moreover, they brought into talks such issues related to the manner in which the oil prices affect the investment climate in our country, but also issues of international political interest, as the impact of the conflict in Ukraine or the importance of the Danube for ensuring energy security for the European Union.

51

Big renewable potentialAnother item on the agenda was the renewable energy sector, presented by Secretary of State Bogdan Badea, who insisted on the situation of the national aid schemes in the field, as well as on Romania’s willingness to adopt new technologies and exploit other resources that are less represented from an economic perspective at present: biogas, biomass, waste etc.

“In order to answer to a specific request of the British representatives, Bogdan Badea assured them of the fact that the aid schemes in the field of renewable energy existing in Romania will continue to treat those who want to invest in such projects in a correct manner,” stated the Ministry of Energy in a release.

Participating in the meeting held at the Ministry of Energy headquarters were also, on behalf of the UK, the British Ambassador in Romania, Paul Brummell, the head of the economic mission, Brian Wilson, and other representatives of the diplomatic mission, as well as the representatives of 26 British companies operating in the energy field.

The meeting was arranged following a request by Paul Brummell during his meeting with Andrei Gerea on February 7, 2015, when they identified numerous similarities existing between the energy mixes in the two countries, as well as a series of cooperation opportunities. The delegation that was received at the

headquarters of the Ministry of Energy, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Business Milieu is part of a larger British economic mission, which includes the representatives of 60 British companies that visited Romania in early March.

Important relationsOn November 31, 2014 (as shown by available data), the UK ranked 8th among Romania’s trade partners, with a 3.15 per cent weight in Romania’s foreign trade and 6th among the EU members states, with a volume of trade exchanges by 5.9 per cent higher than the one recorded in the same interval in 2013.

According to data revealed by the National Trade Register (ONRC), UK ranked 10th among the residence countries of investors in companies running on foreign capital in Romania, on December 31, 2014, with a value of the share capital worth 987 million euros (2.6 per cent of the total foreign investments in Romania), invested in 5,002 companies running on British capital. From the total subscribed capital of companies in UK, 53.2 percent targeted the drilling and processing industry.

“The aid schemes in the field of renewable energy existing in Romania will continue to treat those who want to invest in such projects in a correct manner” – Bogdan Badea, Secretary of State in Energy

52

18ENERGY, IMPORTANT SOURCE OF GROWTH FOR ALBANIAThe Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama inaugurated the Albania Oil, Gas & Energy 2015 Summit on March 17th. He stated that the government sees the energy sector as one of the country’s most important sources of economic growth. The Summit, hosted by International Research Networks, attracted more than 200 delegates from international oil, gas and renewables companies, including current and potential operators in the country, as well as government representatives and bodies.

Oil & Gas

The Albanian Energy Minister Damian Gjiknuri announced that there are still 13 unexplored onshore and offshore oil blocks in Albania, which the government aims to offer to private sector investors. He added that the Albanian government will “ensure a transparent and competitive process to attract serious companies and investors that can afford exploration and production activities”. Albania aims to increase its extraction to two million tons and its domestically refined crude to 700,000 tons this year, the Energy Minister said.

But the highlight of the event, announced by the prime minister himself, was the privatization of Albpetrol, details of which were presented by Endri Purka, showing the company’s high value and importance. Another announcement was made by the main E & P consortium in Albania, composed by the event’s Platinum sponsor, Petromanas, and the Gala Dinner Sponsor, Shell. They declared their will to start drilling the third well in the Shpirag area within 2015, after the first two wells have confirmed oil reserves.

From its side, TAR, Elite Speaking Sponsor, supported the event with a detailed presentation on the ‘ins and outs’ of the most important pipeline for the region, by showing the roadmap to drive forward, with important deadlines and strategic plans. As for SOCAR, the Azeri gas giant, whose representatives were also there to speak about their thoughts on the important Gas Master Plan to be implemented, in order to set the grounds of an integrated gas infrastracture and market in Albania.

The Summit has also provided the audience with the opportunity to discuss the new key role of Albania for Europe’s energy security. So far, Albania’s energy security has been a hundred percent dependent on hydropower energy, as Devoll illustrated with their presentation. However, the ministry will take full advantage of Albania’s hydrocarbon production and the country’s “gasification” through TAP and Eagle LNG, as they will diversify the country’s resources.

But to achieve that goal, as both the prime minister and the ministers of

53

Energy and Economy confirmed, significant investments are needed, from both national majors as well as foreign institutes or companies, either already familiar with Albania or newcomers, willing to invest in the country’s immense energy potential.

Additionally, a strong outlook on Albania’s developed refining sector was given by the Summit’s Lunch Break Sponsor, ARMO Refinery’s representative, Christophe Darbord. The two-day Summit also featured key presentations from Polyeco and Ernst &Young. At the same time, during the several coffee breaks offered by Weatherford, there was an opportunity for private business discussions in parallel with the main talks.

Among others, the Summit attracted the interest of important foreign and international bodies. Amongst the companies in attendance were the following: BP, Edison, Eni, ExxonMobil, Gas Plus International, Hunt Oil, Bankers Petroleum, BB Energy, AKBN, KUFPEC, National Oilwell Varco, Noble Energy, OMV, Petrobras, Petromanas,

Repsol, San Leon Energy, Spectrum and many more.

The Summit was supported by the Foreign Investors Association of Albania, the British Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Albania, the German Association of Industry and Trade in Albania (DIHA) and the Albania International Chamber of Commerce. As for the official Exhibitor Sponsors, among them were Aggreko, Management Force Group, NOV/ ¬FluidControl and Sigal Uniqa Group Austria.

The highlight of the event, announced by the prime minister of Albania, Edi Rama, was the privatization of Albpetrol

54

19ENERGY UNION – A GUARANTEE FOR A LASTING EUIn 2009, the EU introduced the Third Energy Package. Some years later, Europe realised that the results sought through legal regulations are imperfect without the support of the energy infrastructure in the EU. Now the idea of an Energy Union appears. It was announced by the European Commission in February 2015. It seems that Europe recognised the need to take care of the body. Especially now, as energy is praised as a fifth freedom –energy will freely flow, protected by the EU law, across borders together with people, goods, services and capital…

Legal insightPavlin Stoyanoff

In 2009, the EU introduced the Third Energy Package. The main aim was a close, if not full, integration of the EU electricity and gas markets. For that purpose, a cluster of improved regulations were introduced which the member states had to quickly implement in their legal systems. This mainly concerned the unbundling of transmission and distribution system operators from the operations of production and supply, legal guarantees for access, transparency, increase in competition, security of supply to households and other private entities and other vulnerable consumers, carefully examining the regulator’s operations, and many other legal statuses and principles.

Some years later, Europe realised that the results sought through legal regulations were imperfect without the “corporeal” support. Ideas are latent without the body. The body i.e. that of the energy infrastructure in the EU, appears to be in bad health, and especially in certain critical regions. For example, according to the European Commission’s press release of 25

February 2015 , Cyprus, Romania, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom do not meet the EU’s minimum interconnection target – that of at least 10% of installed electricity production capacity to be able to “cross borders”. Concerning natural gas, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are dependent on a single external supplier for all their natural gas imports. Among other reasons, the latter is often due to a single-choice destination of the available natural gas infrastructures.

A non-integrated, or insufficiently integrated European energy infrastructure could not perform as a playground for the great ideas set behind the Third Energy Package.

In cases of a supply crisis, problematic countries should be able to be supported by other EU member states. This is a solution incorporated in the Third Energy Package. Practically, this has proven impossible for many countries which are badly connected to their neighbours’ systems. This occurred in Bulgaria in

55

the 2009 gas crisis, just a few months before the Third Energy Package came to life. And yet, six years later Bulgaria is still one of the EU countries as reported by the Commission to be dependent on a single external supplier for all its natural gas imports. Six years later Bulgaria not only failed to complete, but has barely commenced the realisation of the long announced gas-interconnector projects with its neighbours. Here is a simple example:

Now the idea of an Energy Union appears. It was announced by the European Commission in February 2015. It seems that Europe recognises the need to take care of the “body”. It also realised that the good body structure requires some nutrition and blood (figuratively), i.e. financing. Means are already being provided by the European Investment Bank, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the European Structural and Investment Funds.

The aforementioned funding options are to be conceived in the context of the public statements that: “In an Energy Union, citizens are at the core. The

prices they pay should be affordable and competitive. Energy should be secure and sustainable, with more competition and choice for each consumer”. Energy prices are crucial economic elements in the less advanced EU countries. Governments are aware that significant increase in the end prices usually leads to social tension. However, the Commission acknowledges that the main part of financial means should still come from the private sector. That is, through the fees paid by the infrastructure users, while it is natural for such fees to then be transferred to the end consumers. The European Commission considers that only a small number of projects would actually need grants under the Connecting Europe Facility. These will be projects that are not commercially viable but are still assessed as to provide the security of supply, solidarity or technological innovation.

The Connecting Europe Facility is already available and is restricted to projects that have been classified by the European Commission as projects of common interest. It is true that not all contemplated projects of the countries

in the Balkans are included in the Union list of common interest projects. Bulgaria has three electricity and seven natural gas projects on the list. Croatia has two electricity and four natural gas projects. Cyprus – one in each sector. Greece – three electricity and seven natural gas projects. Romania - two electricity projects and five natural gas projects. These numbers often include a cluster of projects. There is consistency – among others, one can always find the Southern Gas Corridor on the high-voltage electricity interconnection project list. The list obviously does not include merely “internal” projects that would not contribute to the cross-border systems’ integrity. The list will be further updated in the autumn of 2015 based on prior regional selection.

The above statement of the Commission about the envisaged ways of financing the Energy Union basically means that the member states should fine-tune their energy economies to be able to complete a larger number of projects. In any case, the Balkan countries should try to benefit from this new strategic EU route and perform the planned

56

cross-border infrastructural projects – natural gas interconnectors, natural gas storage capacities, natural gas hubs, improvement of the electricity network and smart grids. Regional electricity and gas exchange markets are also a requisite for sustainable energy economy. The lack of financing is on many occasions the accused insurmountable wall preventing such projects to be transformed to actions from words. One should not ignore that political negligence reinforces this invisible wall at crucial points.

Europe is a “high-class” society in many aspects, and often EU politicians are ready to procure well priced goods for their citizens. While the highly appreciated values of Europe seem to be a comparatively smaller problem for Western countries, Central and Eastern European member states succumbed to the burden of new requirements and targets on many occasions. Such as the renewable energy sources for example, which put many of the Eastern and Southern states in Europe in a fair amount of trouble, and send others into deep thoughts and reluctance to “go for it, big-time”. Even Germany made several mistakes while implementing the RES targets. This however does not stop Europe from its manifested goals: “the EU has the world’s most ambitious commitments on climate change”, the European Commission reaffirms. And as a new image of the ambitions, the European Union brings upfront the

new perception of energy efficiency as an energy source - another concept declared to be one of the pillars of the Energy Union. At what pace and price to society will technology make progress in order to materialise the desire, energy efficiency to compete with generation capacities? Supporters would say that it does not matter as future savings and para-monetary benefits will make up for all losses.

The question that arises is what will the European citizens actually be paying for? Clean environment, uninterrupted access to energy, freedom… For the people, the Energy Union should “allow a free flow of energy across borders and a secure supply in every EU country, for every citizen”.

From a higher political point of view, the integrated energy system in the EU should bring national and economic security to the states and people – independence, and sustainability – that should last. In fact the European Union should find all kinds of means to preserve itself, as its integrity seems to be challenged on a daily basis by external and internal well-wishers. Each “organism” needs sufficient amount of energy to keep the matter that builds it bound. And with the increase of the matter’s mass, the whole organism needs more energy flowing through to keep it as one. In this context, an Energy Union seems to be the right recipe for

The history of the European Communities has proven that great changes take a huge amount of effort, time and determination in order to be accomplished. A lot of brave ideas also undergo substantial alterations from the initial concept to the final product before winning the animating consensus.

57

preserving the European Union still shining as a stable constellation in the dome of nations. However, the theory still needs the right formula to mature.

The energy is now praised as a fifth freedom –energy will freely flow, protected by the EU laws, across borders together with people, goods, services and capital. The question whether energy is not already a service or goods and why it should be called a “third thing”, unknown so far, probably does not need an answer. Along with the de facto infrastructural obstacle facing the free flow of energy, currently comprehended, it shall be considered that we are talking about one of the most heavily regulated economic sectors in each country. Energy is always immanent to national security. It is characterised by its natural monopolies and frequent suspicions in dominant position abuse. This means a lot of work for the national regulators as well as for the competition protection authorities. The European Commission appeals for enforcing the independence of regulators. And this seems to be a great problem in the Balkans and in the countries from the former Eastern Bloc. When energy is such a delicate factor for society, capable of affecting every single citizen in each country, it appears a strong political leverage. In this context, it is a luxury for some governments to readily obey the independence of the national energy regulators, usually appointed by the

governing forces anyway. Hence, here we have the outlines of the still vague idea of a European energy regulator. Will all member states, and to what extent, be ready to share their prerogatives (sovereignty) in this highly sensitive political and economic sphere with the EU institutions? There is already quite some opposition to the entire idea of an Energy Union. At the same time, small countries should see a chance to release some burden by sharing the responsibility for solving some of their largest problems with the EU institutions.

The tolerance of some rather conservative groups of EU politics towards an “EU energy regulator” could logically be expected not to go further than just vesting some high level general powers to such a central body. Is it too daring to consider national price regulations at an EU level? The first step seems to have been made to that precise direction. At the EU summit of 19 March this year, the leaders of 28 EU member states discussed a proposal to give the EU Commission a central role in vetting and approving the natural gas supply contracts across the EU. If adopted, the proposal would empower the European Commission to oversee natural gas supply agreements before they are entered into by the contracting parties. Thus, the Commission would be able to block such commercial agreements if it considers that the natural gas prices are unfair or if any of the contractual

provisions are incompliant with EU law. The target of such a policy seems to be the companies importing gas to Europe, which must comply with the competition regulations in Europe. This very action, conceived at the dawn of the officially announced Energy Union, already faces negative definitions such as ‘damage to national democracies’ etc. However, it is a sign that there is strong will for the Energy Union to actually occur.

The history of the European Communities has proven that great changes take a huge amount of effort, time and determination in order to be accomplished. A lot of brave ideas also undergo substantial alterations from the initial concept to the final product before winning the animating consensus. The European Constitution is, for example, a project so altered that it actually was left behind as such. Nevertheless, a synergetic union, literally, would most hopefully bring more to the EU citizens and to strengthening the coherence of the European Union than just a document even if it is called a ‘Constitution’.

One of the legal pillars of the European Union is the ‘solidarity clause’: each member state relying on its neighbours for energy supply. We believe that solidarity is also needed at the outset of this challenging EU project in order to achieve solidarity as an outcome.

58

20NEW TRADING PLATFORMS FOR ELECTRICITY IN ROMANIAThe Romanian National Energy Regulatory Authority (“ANRE”) adopted significant changes in the rules applicable to the regulated electricity trading market by way of Order no. 78/2014 (“Order no. 78/2014”) regarding the approval of the regulation for the conclusion of electricity bilateral contracts by means of extended public auction, continuous negotiation and processing contracts (the “Regulation”). The Order no. 78/2014 entered into force as of January 1st 2015.

Legal insightLoredana Mihailescu*

The Regulation applies to: (i) holders of production/supply/transport and distribution licences in the electricity sector, and (ii) operators of the centralized market of electricity bilateral contracts (“OPCCB”).

The registration to the centralized market for electricity bilateral contracts (the “PCCB”) is made upon each solicitor’s request addressed to the OPCCB, in accordance with the specific operational procedure, by signing the participation convention to and payment of the related participation tariff.

The following trading platforms are now available on the PCCB: (a) extended public auction (the “PCCB-LE”); (b) continuous negotiation (the “PCCB-NC”); (c) fuel processing contracts (the “PCCB-PC”).

On the PCCB-LE and PCCB-PC the parties are only allowed to use a framework contract published on the OPCCB website. On the PCCB-NC platform, the parties are only allowed

to use a standard contract published on the OPCCB website with pre-defined terms and conditions which have to be accepted by all participants. Both the framework and standard contracts were drafted by the OPCCB after conducting public consultation.

On the PCCB-LE and PCCB-PC, the participant initiating the transaction can insert specific clauses in the proposed contract, but only regarding the due dates, payment methods, warranties and financial penalties.

However, it is prohibited to include clauses in the contract that: (a) amend the quantities (only band delivery at a fix quantity throughout the contract is allowed), price, and duration of contract; (b) gives the parties the opportunity to further amend the contract by mutual agreement or based on certain formulae that will ultimately alter the main terms of the contract as agreed after public auction (i.e. fixed price and quantities); (c) add other services;

The participants who (i) withdraw their

59

offers or (ii) refuse to conclude the contract after being declared wining bidder, or (iii) present a contract that is not compliant with the above mentioned rules, are subject to pay the OPCCB a penalty. Until the payment of the penalty, the respective participant is suspended from trading.

Consequences of the new regulationsAlthough the declared aim of the Regulation is to ensure maximum transparency and non-discriminatory treatment on the OPCOM trading platforms, the mandatory band delivery and the obligation to use a standard contract with pre-defined terms and conditions may actually become a downturn for the electricity market.

The PCCB-LE platform allows the parties to enter into multi-year contracts, but the restrictive trading conditions and lack of flexibility deter the parties from making use this opportunity. In light of Order no. 78/2014, the long-term contracts will no longer be a wise investment choice, as no energy trader will want to sell

band electricity at a fixed price on the long run. This will especially affect the renewable energy producers as their production is unpredictable and requires flexible mechanism and price adjustments formulae.

Another issue, especially for renewable capacities is the time intervals which are fixed for all participants.

In respect to the PCCB-LE, the framework contract (which allows contracts to be signed for more than 1 year) provide for the selection of one of the following options with respect to the total/hourly quantity of electricity to be delivered from seller to buyer: (i) band delivery (Monday-Sunday from 00:00- 24:00); (ii) band delivery at peak hours (Monday-Friday from 7:00- 23:00); and (iii) band delivery at off-peak hours (Monday-Friday from 00:00- 7:00 and 23:00- 24:00 and Saturday-Sunday from 00:00- 24:00).

None of the above choices is suitable for wind or photovoltaic capacities. If we take the situation of the photovoltaic power plants as an example, it is impossible for the producers to supply electricity from Monday-Sunday from 00:00- 24:00. Moreover, a photovoltaic power plant cannot select the other two options as it will remain uncovered for the week-ends. That is why, as a common practice, most of

The PCCB-LE platform allows the parties to enter into multi-year contracts, but the restrictive trading conditions and lack of flexibility deter the parties from making use this opportunity

60

the renewable electricity producers could consider authorizing a trader to sell their electricity on their behalf on the OPCOM’s Intra-day Market or the Balancing Market. The downturn of this situation is that on these markets, there is a greater exposure to imbalances and the incomes of the respective producers will be unpredictable. This can also be considered by ANRE as an attempt to circumvent the law and can be sanctioned with the absolute nullity of the respective contracts.

In respect to the PCCB-NC, the framework contracts provide for the selection of one of the following options with respect to the total/hourly quantity of electricity to be delivered from seller to buyer: (i) band delivery (Monday-Sunday from 00:00- 24:00); (ii) band delivery at peak load hours (Monday-Friday from 6:00- 22:00); (ii) band delivery at peak load hours (Monday-Sunday from 6:00- 22:00); and (iv) delivery at constant power at off-peak hours (Monday-Friday from 00:00-6:00 and 22:00- 24:00 and Saturday-Sunday from 00:00- 24:00).

We can observe that the delivery periods suggested for the PCCB-NC, are sensitive to the technicalities of the production of renewable energy. Therefore, most of the renewable energy producers who are now by default registered with the PCCB-LE (which is deemed to be the successor of the former bilateral contracts market abrogated by order no. 78/2014) are considering switching to the PCCB-NC as they have more options in terms

of the time frame for the delivery of electricity. However, the PCCB-NC only allows quarterly contracts and the last quarter for which an offer can be placed is the third quarter of 2017 (assuming that a supplier or trader would want to take the risk of accepting an offer at this time for 2017).

In response to the restrictions imposed by Order no. 78/2014, the renewable electricity producers, electricity suppliers as well as any other similar organizations have joined forces and filed a legal action against the ANRE. It is expected that almost 40% of the renewable energy producers may

face insolvency in 2015 as a result of the adoption of Order no. 78/2014. In Romania, there are currently over 600 renewable energy production units (over 5000 installed MW), the investment reaching the total amount of approximately EUR 7 billion. These projects were financed, in a proportion of 50% by banks, and thus by their insolvency there is the risk of creating a bank default of approximately EUR 1-1.5 billion.

In December 2014, the President of the Services and Industry Commission within the Chamber of Deputies, announced at a public conference that, an amendment of the Energy Law is required, so as to give a clear and singular interpretation to the principle of “transparency and non-discrimination” which was translated into secondary legislation by restrictive measures, such as Order no. 78/2014. In response, the ANRE admits that a certain amount of flexibility is required, but insists that their obligation is to take measures to avoid any concealed and discriminatory elements which have been present on the market.

* Loredana Mihailescu – Partner, Energy

Projects & Construction, CMS Cameron

McKenna SCA Law Firm, Bucharest office

In December 2014, the President of the Services and Industry Commission within the Chamber of Deputies, announced at a public conference that, an amendment of the Energy Law is required

61

21THE UPRATING OF UNITS 5 & 6

OF THE KOZLODUY NPPWhile over the previous decade strong challenges placed the very existence of the nuclear industry in Bulgaria at the point of a questionable survival, it is quite reassuring to see that the extension of the lifetime of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP expand beyond 2017 and 2019 respectively, is currently on the top of Government’s agenda.

Legal insightKostadin Sirleshtov

It has been quite a discouraging decade for the Bulgarian nuclear sector following the successful completion of the modernization of Units 5 & 6 at the Kozloduy NPP. Indeed, this project, the construction part of which has been completed over 10 years ago, and the financing of which is about to be repaid soon, is the only feasible nuclear project completed in Bulgaria for over two decades following the successful initial commencement of Unit 6’s operation.

In a sharp contrast, the nuclear failures have been much larger in numbers and much more striking in magnitude. Due to the early shutting-down of Units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP according to an independent assessment, the losses and the decommissioning costs will amount to more than €4 and 8 billion respectively1. So far, the termination of the Belene I and Belene II project attempts has caused another €2 billion of direct loss for Bulgaria and the National Electricity Company with another €1 billion at threat following the expected upcoming final award of Rosatom’s claim2. With absolutely no proper feasibility study and without the

necessary procedures required under the Bulgarian legislation, at the end of the previous Bulgarian Government’s tenure, without any tender the Kozloduy NPP signed a Shareholders’ Agreement with Westinghouse Electric Company for the start of the Kozloduy Unit 7 project based on AP 1000 technology, which faced strong opposition in the country3. Westinghouse is not planning to remain an equity investor past point of completion, and therefore the company was planning to see Bulgaria owning 100 percent of the revenue and profits of the plant. These assumptions have been strongly challenged by the current Bulgarian Government4.

While over the previous decade the above strong challenges placed the very existence of the nuclear industry in Bulgaria at the point of a questionable survival, it is quite reassuring to see that the extension of the lifetime of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP expand beyond 2017 and 2019 respectively, is currently on the top of Government’s agenda. Despite the warning signals coming from the expert community that the focus on the life-extension measures

62

came ‘too little, too late’, the authorities in Sofia believe that the complex measures for the extension of the lifetime of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP will be completed on time to avoid any shut down period for the Units.

Simultaneously with the start of the extension of the lifetime of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP, Bulgaria and Toshiba International completed a landmark project for the Bulgarian power sector thus successfully uprating the Russian turbines at Units 5-8 of the Maritsa East 2 TPP with an increase of 17% over the original electrical output and completed a feasibility study with the Kozloduy NPP for the same exercise with Units 5 & 6.

The project for the parallel up-rating of Units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy NPP shows feasibility, which is unprecedented for the Bulgarian nuclear sector so far.

1. First and foremost, the project for the uprating of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP could be implemented in parallel with the lifetime extension of these same units, thus not leading

to any additional outage for this fundamental base load capacity plant for the Bulgarian power sector. Thus no loss of income will be required, and therefore the financial status of the plant will not be affected.

2. In addition to that, with the proper planning of the construction activities at the site, the actual time for the implementation of the uprating measures would require not more than 50 working days during the outage period. Such a timeframe is achievable, based on the successful implementation of similar measures by the same contractor at the Maritsa East 2 TPP.

3. Due to the specifics of the nuclear turbine technology and following from the results of the feasibility study, the guaranteed increase in the output of Units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy NPP is 10% of their current production or 200 MW. Given the likely extension of the lifetime of the units with 30 additional years and based on the most conservative estimations on the price of electricity currently at 35 EUR/MWh, the pure profit for the Kozloduy NPP as

a result of this project alone will likely exceed 4 billion EUR over that period.

4. The project for the increase in the output of Units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy NPP is not related to the extension of the lifetime of the reactors and therefore it is not affected by the regulatory limitations and authorizations related to the nuclear island works. Nevertheless, a preliminary opinion by part of the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission might be required with respect to the potential licensing of the plant with its increased capacity and in order to shorten the time period between the completion of the works and the commencement of the units’ licensed operation.

5. Given the specifics of the uprating works, the related know-how and the results of the Feasibility study, the procurement procedure for awarding the project could be shortened. Indeed, the results of the study clearly demonstrate that the project is 6-7 times more efficient than an investment into a new nuclear unit and that the repayment period shouldn’t exceed 3-3.5 years. Furthermore, as a

63

result of the potential negotiations, the substantial part of the investment costs could be moved towards the completion of the construction works and therefore very close to the commencement of the repayment.

6. Given the magnitude of the feasibility of the project and the fact that the Kozloduy NPP is the largest producer of electricity in the Balkans, there will be almost no financing costs related to the structuring of the project, as there is likely to be no external financing involved. Apart from the financial positives for such an approach for the plant, it will also streamline the structure of the project avoiding some unnecessary delays and complications for the closing and furthermore towards the completion of the construction.

With a number of regional failures in the nuclear field, including the collapse of the Belene II and Unit 7 of the Kozloduy NPP projects in Bulgaria, the termination of the Temelin NPP tender in the Czech Republic and the controversy around the new units at Paks NPP in Hungary, the delays for Cherna Voda Units 3 and 4 project in Romania and the Akkuyu NPP project in Turkey and the uncertainty for the Polish nuclear energy future, it is essentially important for the security of the electricity supply in the SEE region and for the revival of the nuclear energy projects in this region to have

the upgrade of Units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria (together with its lifetime extension) completed on time and in parallel, in order to double the feasibility of the investment and to showcase the way forward for future projects on that nature in the region, most notably in Ukraine.

1 – European Nuclear Society: https://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/ e-news-11/bulgaria-print.htm 2 – Bloomberg: Rosatom files 1 billion EUR claim against Bulgaria: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-11/russia-s-rosatom-files-1-billion-euro-claim-against-bulgaria-1- 3 – Westinghouse Announces Agreement On New Unit At Bulgaria’s Kozloduy: http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/08/01/westinghouse-announces-agreement-on-new-unit-at-bulgaria-s-kozloduy 4 – Bulgaria Insists that Westinghouse Participates with 49% Share in Financing of Kozloduy N-Plant Unit 7 Project: http://www.bta.bg/en/c/DF/id/1045273 5 – The efforts of the Bulgarian government are streamlined to fulfil the life extension project for Bulgaria’s sole functioning nuclear power station at Kozloduy - http://www.publics.bg/en/news/12213/New_Planned_Unit_and_Kozloduy_NPP_Life_Extension_Discussed_in_Sofia_Today.html

Simultaneously with the start of the extension of the lifetime of Units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy NPP, Bulgaria and Toshiba International completed a landmark project for the Bulgarian power sector thus successfully uprating the Russian turbines at Units 5-8 of the Maritsa East 2 TPP

64

22THE LARGEST OFFSHORE WIND FARMS IN THE WORLD“EnergyWorld” gathered the top 10 offshore wind farms by sheer generating capacity. As detailed, the U.K. emerges as the most innovative and bold country in the development of offshore wind energy technology.

RenewablesYiannis Pispirigos

Offshore wind power refers to the construction of wind farms in bodies of water in order to generate electricity from wind. Stronger wind speeds are available offshore compared to on land, so offshore wind power’s contribution in terms of electricity supplied is higher. However, offshore wind farms are relatively expensive. Following are the top 10 offshore wind farms by sheer generating capacity.

Lincs - U.K., 270 MWLocated off the east coast of England, the Lincs Wind Farm is a £1 billion wind farm owned by Centrica, DONG Energy, and Siemens. The project began in 2004, although it was only completed in 2013. A notable inclusion in the project is the extensive underground cable system that runs electricity back to land. This comprised 25 % of the project’s cost and will outlast the 40 year lifespan of the project itself.

Meerwind Süd/ Ost - Germany, 288 MWThe Meerwind wind farms are two separate wind farms (south and east) located in the German Bright of the

North Sea. The farms only opened in September last year and are owned by WindMW. The location of the project is particularly notable for its location, which boats a stellar combination of strong winds a convenient water depth. The farm also uses the nearby island of Helgoland as its maintenance base.

Thanet - U.K., 300 MWThe Thanet wind farm is off the southeastern cost of Kent, in the U.K. When it was completed in 2010, it was set to be the largest operational wind farm in the world. Judging as how it’s now number eight on the list, that is no longer the case. Still, the Thanet project uses state-of-the-art Vestas turbines and is owned by Vattenfall.

Sheringham Shoal - U.K., 317 MWIf you haven’t figured it out by now, the U.K. is a major world leader in offshore wind energy and Sheringham Shoal is one of the country’s most iconic projects. The turbines are huge -so big, a double-decker bus could drive through one. Ownership of the project is split 50-50 between Statoil and Statkraft. The estimated actual output of the project is approximately

65

125 MW, which is sufficient to power approximately 220,000 average UK homes, more than two times the equivalent electricity required to supply the whole of the North Norfolk coast.

Thorntonbank - Belgium, 325 MWStationed off the north coast of Belgium, this farm recently reached its maximum planned capacity of 325 MW. The project was completed in three phases, with the most recently being finished in September of 2013. It currently has 54 operational units and cost an estimated £1.3 billion to complete. It was designed to have a minimum environmental impact to both sea life and shipping routes.

Walney - U.K., 367 MWLocated in the Irish Sea, the Walney Wind Farm is in a little shallower waters than some of the others on this list, in waters only 19-23m deep. The project is a partnership between DONG Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy. DONG was awarded a 50-year lease for the project and completed the construction in two phases. The wind warm saw a small crisis earlier this year when a dive vessel crashed into one of the turbines and

spilled a small amount of oil into the sea.

BARD Offshore 1 - Germany, 400 MWThe BARD Offshore 1 wind farm is also relatively new, as it was only completed in September of 2013. Owned by Enovos, the farm sits off the north coast of Germany. The project is noteworthy for its use of the Wind Lift 1 barge during its construction, which placed the massive, 470 ton, 21 meter foundations into the seabed.

Anholt - Denmark, 400 MWThe largest offshore wind farm in Denmark, Anholt was also completed in September of 2013. A project of DONG Energy, the wind farm cost roughly 10 billion Danish kroner to build. This project is unique in its placement of the Siemens turbines. Usually, turbines are placed in a grid pattern of lines and rows, though that’s not the case with Anholt. The turbines placed in an unusual pattern, governed by two principles: put most of them along the edges, and put most in undisturbed airflow from the main direction, which is West-southwest – increasing production by 1.5%, a lifetime

value of more than 100m Danish kroner.

Greater Gabbard - U.K., 504 MWThe Greater Gabbard wind farm started out as a project between Airtricity and Fluor, though through mergers, acquisitions and other moves, it is currently owned by Scottish and Southern Energy. It was completed in 2012, though there is ongoing work on the underwater cables for the project. The project will also undergo expansion, adding 140 turbines by 2017.

London Array - U.K., 630The London Array is the king of the offshore wind farms. The project has multiple owners and has seen a huge investment of £1.8 billion. Located near the southwest coast of England, the project is a sight to behold. The array is intended to reduce annual CO2 emissions by roughly 900,000 tons – equal to the emissions of 300,000 passenger cars.

Sources: European Energy Wind Association (EWEA), EnergyDigital, WindPowerMonthly.com

Νame or company

________________________________________________________________Address

________________________________________________________________

Post code / Country: _______________________________________________

E-mail: _________________________________________________________

Tel.: ____________________________________________________________

I would like an invoice n

Profession: ______________________________________________________

T.V.A. / V.A.T.: ____________________________________________________

Method of payment

1) I enclose a cheque payable to TRIM S.A. n2) I made a deposit to National Bank of Greece n

IBAN: GR64 0110 1870 0000 1874 7003 251 – SWIFT/BIC ETHNGRAA

3) Please charge my credit card

Mastercard n Visa n Switch / Maestro nIssue number n n n n n n nCard nr.

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nExpires n n n nName on card

_________________________________________________________________

Signature _______________________________________________________

Date ____________________________________________________________

Annual subscription for Europe (bi-monthly / 6 Issues)

Educational Institutions & students 85 euros / year nCompanies & Executives Companies & individuals 100 euros / year n

Subscription with presentation Two pages company presentation 400 euros / year n

Yellow pages directory inclusion 100 euros / year n

Please complete this coupon and send it to the following address:

ROMANIAAll Media Designers S.R.L.energyworld MagazineȘos. Nicolae Titulescu nr. 3Bloc A1, ap.62, et.8, Sector 1București, CP 011131, RomâniaTel.: +40 213110455E: info@energyworldmag.com

GREECETRIM S.A.energyworld Magazine5, Grivogiorgou Street115 28 Athens - GreeceTel.: +30 210 7240510E: info@energyworldmag.com

BULGARIAALEANA Commercial & Media Services Ltd energyworld Magazine145B, Rakovski Street,Sofia 1000, BulgariaTel.: +359 89 7617777E: info@energyworldmag.com

www.energyworldmag.com

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION

Your Energy Magazine for SE Europe & East Med

68 INTERNATIONAL

68 ALBANIA

68 BULGARIA

70 CROATIA

70 CYPRUS

72 GREECE

75 ROMANIA

79 SERBIA

80 TURKEY

67

23ENERGY DIRECTORY

68

INTERNATIONAL

DG Energy-European ComissionDM 2403/73 Rue J.-A. Demot 24, 1040, Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32 229 92460 Email: address-information@ec.europa.eu www.ec.europa.eu/energy

EWEA80, Rue d’Arlon, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32 2 213 1811 Email: ewea@ewea.org www.ewea.org/

International Energy Agency (IEA)9, rue de la Fédération, Paris Cedex 15, 75739 Paris-France Tel.: +33 1 40 57 65 00, Fax: +33 1 40 57 65 09 Email: info@iea.org www.iea.org

IRENA - International Renewable Energy AgencyCI Tower, Khalidiyah (32nd) Street Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Tel.: +971 2 4179000 www.irena.org/

IRENA Innovation Technology CentreRobert-Schuman-Platz 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 228 391 79085 www.irena.org/

World Energy CouncilRegency House, 1-4 Warweek Street, 5th floor London, W1B 5LT, United Kingdom Tel.: +44 (0) 207734 5996 www.worldenergy.org

World Wind Energy Association5, Charles-de-Gaulle-Str., 53113 Bonn, Germany Tel.: +49 228 369 40 80 www.wwindea.org

ALBANIA

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSMinistry of Energy and IndustryDëshmorët & Kombit Boulevard, 1001 Tirana Tel.: +355 4 22222 45 ext.74111 Email: sekretaria@energjia.gov.al

02. ENERGY COMPANIESAlbpetrol sh.aLagja 29 Marsi Patos Tel./Fax: +342 70 44 14, +342 70 44 13 E-mail: qendra_albp@albpetrol.net www.albpetrol.net

Bankers Petroleum Ltd.Lagjja Kastrioti, Rr. Vasil Pecuke, Fier Tel.: +355 34 220845, Fax +355 34 220850 Email: investorrelations@bankerspetroleum.com www.bankerspetroleum.com

Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. / StatkraftABA Business Centre, Office No. 1204, Papa Gjon Pali II Street, Tirana Tel: +355 4 450 1 450 Email: info@devollhydropower.al

Kurum HoldingRr. Jul Variboba, Nr.1/21, Tirana Tel.: +355 4 229 05 00 Fax: +355 4 229 05 22 E-mail: infoalbania@kurum.com.tr

03. LAW FIRMSCMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola ScamoniRr. Sami Frasheri Red Building, 1001 Tirana Tel.: +335 4 4302123, Fax: +335 4 2400737 Email: marco.lacaita@cms-aacs.com www.cms-aacs.com, www.cmslegal.com

IKRP Rokas & Partners Albania sh.p.k.Donika Kastrioti Str., Palace No. 14, Apartment 7A Tirana, Albania Tel.: +355 4 2267707 E-mail: tirana@rokas.com www.rokas.com/en/

Wolf Theiss AlbaniaEurocol Centre, 4th floor, Murat Toptani Street, 1001 Tirana Tel./ Fax: +355 4 2274 521 Email: sokol.nako@wolftheiss.com www.wolftheiss.com

BULGARIA

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSDKEVR8-10 Dondukov Blvd., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 988 8730, +359 2 9359 621 Email: dker@dker.bg www.dker.bg

Ministry of Economy and Energy8, Slavyanska Str., Sofia 1052 Tel.: +359 2 9407001, +359 2 940 7545 Email: e-docs@mee.government.bg www.mi.government.bg

Nuclear Regulatory Agency69 Shipchenski prokhod Blvd, 1574 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9406-800 Email: mail@bnra.bg www.bnsa.bas.bg

Parliament Energy Commission 1 Knyaz Alexander I Sq., Sofia Tel.: +359 2 939 39 Email: ratalay@parliament.bg www.parliament.bg

Sustainable Energy Development Agency37 Ekzarh Yosiph Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 915 4012 Email: office@seea.government.bg www.seea.government.bg

2. NON GOVERNMENTAL Association of Producers of Ecological Energy 310 Vladislav Varnenchik Blvd., 9009 Varna Tel.: + 359 52 750 550 Email: info@apee.bg www.apee.bg

Balkan & Black Sea Petroleum Association2 Hristo Belchev Str., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria Tel.: +359 2 986 06 85 Email: bbspetroleum@bbspetroleum.com www.bbspetroleum.com

BSK16-20 Alabin Str., Sofia 1000 Tel.: + 359 2 980 03 03, +359 2 932 09 28 Email: office@bia-bg.com www.bia-bg.com

Bulatom10 Vihren Str., 1618 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 439 03 02, Email: pr@bulatom-bg.org www.bulatom-bg.org

Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry9 Iskar Str., Sofia 1058 Tel.: +359 2 987 78 26, +359 2 8117 445 Email: bcci@bcci.bg www.bcci.bg

Bulgarian Photovoltaic Association42 Vitosha Blvd., Floor 2, App. 3, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 44 222 28 Email: office@bpva.org www.bpva.org

Bulgarian Wind Energy Association 7 Paris Str., 5th Floor, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 4833820 Email: info@bgwea.org www.bgwea.org

Energy Management Institute 5 Lege Str. 1st Floor, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 980 07 03, +359 2 950 62 10 Email: emi@emi-bg.com www.emi-bg.com

KRIB8 Han Asparuh Str., 1463 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 981 9169 www.ceibg.bg

PublicsN7, Stefan Karadja Str., Entrance A, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 879436756 Email: office@publics.bg www.publics.bg

WWF Bulgaria38 Ivan Vazov Street, 2nd fl., 3th ap., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 29505040 Email: office@wwfdcp.bg www.wwf.bg

03. ENERGY COMPANIESAEC Kozlodui3321 Kozlodui Tel.: +359 973 7 2020 Email: info@kznpp.org www.kznpp.org/

AESAES Maritza Iztok 1, 72 Lyuben Karavelov Str., Sofia Tel.: +359 42 901 634 Email: peter.lithgow@aes.com www.aes.com

Brikel EADStara Zagora region, 6280 Galabovi Tel.: +359 8122000 www.brikel-bg.com/

Bulgarian Energy Holding16 Vesalec Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 926 38 00 Email: hq@bgenh.com www.bgenh.com

CEZ140 G.S. Rakovski Str., Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 070010010 Email: cez@cez.bg www.cez.bg

69

Contour GlobalContourGlobal Maritsa East 3 TPP, Mednikarovo, Stara Zagora 6294 Tel.: +359-42-663-251 Email: me3@ContourGlobal.com www.contourglobal.com

Dalkia5 Janosh Huniadi Blvd, PO Box 26, Varna Tel.: +359 889311218 Email: mail@dalkia.bg www.dalkia.bg

Energo-pro258 Vladislav Varnenchik Blvd, Varna Towers, Tower G, 9009 Varna Tel.: +359 52 660876 Email: press@energo-pro.bg www.energo-pro.bg

ESOTriaditsa District, 105 Gotse Delchev Blvd., 1404 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 96-96-802 Email: eso@eso.bg www.tso.bg

EVN37 Hristo G. Danov Str., 4000 Plovdiv Tel.: +359 700 1 7777 Email: info@evn.bg www.evn.bg

National Electricity Company 5 Vesalec Str., 1040 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9263 636, +359 2 986 56 06 Email: nek@nek.bg www.nek.bg

TEC Bobov DolGolyamo Selo vilage, 2600 Bulgaria Tel.: +359 701 50531 www.tecbd.com

TEC Sviloza EAD51 Krastio Sarafov Str., 1 floor, ap 1, 1421 Sofia Tel.: +359 42 615615 Email: office@tpp-svilosa.bg www.tpp-sviloza.bg

Toplophikacia BourgasLozovo District, North Industrial Zone, Heating Plant, 8000 Bourgass Tel.: +359 56 87 11 11 Email: office@toplo-bs.com www.toplo-bs.com

Toplophikacia Pleven128 Eastern Industrial Zone, 5800 Pleven Tel.: +359 64 895 288 www.toplo-pleven.com

Toplophikacia RousseTEC Iztok Str., 7009 Rousse Tel.: +359 82 883311 Email: tecrus@toplo-ruse.com www.toplo-ruse.com

Toplophikacia Sliven23 Stephan Karadja, 8800 Sliven Tel.: +359 44 622 722 Email: toplo@sliven.net http://new.sliven.net/toplo/

TPP Martza Iztok 2 6265 Kovachevo village, Stara Zagora district Tel.: +359 42 66 20 14, +359 42 66 29 19 Email: tec2@tpp2.com www.tpp2.com

04. ALTERNATIVE ENERGYE.Mirolio EADIndustrial Zone, 8800 Sliven Tel.: +359 44612418 Email: miroglio.lana@emiroglio.com www.emiroglio.com

SolarPro Holding7 Sheinovo str., 1504 Sofia Email: office@solarpro.bg www.solarpro.bg

Smart Group35 N.Y.Vapcarov Street, Floor3, ap. 3A, 1407 Sofia Tel.: +359 884 369000, +90 532 566 2753 Email: office@veistroy.com http://smartgroupint.com/

05. OIL & GASBulgargas47 Petar Parchevich Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 935 89 44, +359 2 935 89 88 Email: hq@bulgargaz.bg www.bulgargaz.com

BulgartransgasPOB 3, Housing estate ”Ljulin-2”, 66 Pancho Vladigerov Blvd, Sofia 1336 Tel.: + 359 /2/ 939 63 00 Email: info@bulgartransgaz.bg http://www.bulgartransgaz.bg

Citigas Bulgaria EAD4 Adam Mitskevich Str. Tel.: +359 2 925 9495 Email: sofia@citygas.bg www.citygas.bg/

DEXIA BULGARIA9160 Devnya Industrial Zone Tel.: +359 887077077 Email: pola.naydenova@mail.bg

Direct Petrolium Bulgaria/TransAtlantic16 Arh. J. Milanov str., 1164 Sofia Tel.: +3592 963 3244 Email: info@transatlanticpetroleum.com www.transatlanticpetroleum.com/portfolio/bulgaria

Lukoil42, Todor Alexandrov Blvd, 1303 Bulgaria Tel.: +359 2 91 74 316 Email: office@lukoil.bg www.lukoil.bg

Melrose Resources Bulgaria 32 Marko Balabanov, 9000 Varna Tel.: +359 52 699 556 Email: info@petroceltic.com www.petroceltic.com/

OMV Bulgaria 1, Sofiiski Geroi Str., Sofia 1612 Tel.: +359 2 93 29710 Email: info.bulgaria@omv.com www.omv.bg

Overgaz5 Philip Kutev Str., 1407 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 428 2000 Email: gas@overgas.bg www.overgas.bg

Petrol43, Cherni Vrah Blvd, 1407 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 4960 300 www.petrol.bg

Shell Bulgaria 48, Sitniakovo Blvd, Serdica Office, 8 floor, 1505 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 960 1752 Email: smartbul@shell.com www.shell.bg

Toplivo2, Solunska Str., Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 9333 570 Email: toplivo@toplivo.net www.toplivo.bg

06. MAINTENANCEAtomenergoremontKozloduy NPP site, 3321 Kozloduy Tel.: +359 973 80018 Email: aer@aer-bg.com www.aer-bg.com/

Centralna Energoremontna Baza1 Lokomotiv Str., 1220 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 8105 454 Email: info@cerb.bg http://cerb.bg/

Chimcomplect205, Al. Stamboliyski, Blvd., 1309 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 822 34 60 Email: headoffice@chimcomplect-eng.bg www.chimcomplect-eng.bg

Enemona20 Kosta Lulchev Str., Sofia 1113 Tel.: +359 2 80 54 850 Email: office-sf@enemona.com www.enemona.bg

Energoremont Holding34 Totleben Blvd., 1606 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 8133577 Email: info@erhold.bg www.erhold.bg/bg

Energoremont – Galabovo6280 Galabovo Tel.: +359 418 62086 Email: info@energoremont-bg.com www.energoremont-bg.com

Risk Enegenering10 Vihren Str., Sofia 1618 Tel.: +359 2 8089 702 www.riskeng.bg

07. ELECTRICITY TRADERSDANS120D, Simeonovsko Shose Blvd, 1700 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 42 100 10 www.dansenergy.eu

EFG10, Vihren Str., Pavlovo distr., Sofia Tel.: + 359 2 892 88 08 Email: office@efg.bg www.efg.bg

EFT19, George Washington Street, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 439 9010 Email: enquiries@eft-group.net www.eft-group.net

Energy MT8, Bacho Kiro, 1000 Sofia Email: office@emtbg.com www.emtbg.com/

70

OET38, Bokar Blvd, 1404 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 854 81 38, +359 894 777846 Email: office.bg@oet-energy.com www.oet-energy.com

08. LAW FIRMSBALMS2, General Totleben Street, floor 4, 1606 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 411 0004 Email: balms@balmsbulgaria.com www.balmsbulgaria.com

Batkov & Assocs.48, Alabin Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9335611 Email: t.batkov@batkov.com www.batkov.com

CMS Cameron McKenna14, Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 897860421 Email: konstantin.sirleshtov@cms-cmck.com www.cms-cmck.com/Sofia-CMS-CMCK-Bulgaria

I. K. Rokas & Partners Law Firm – Branch Bulgaria, I. Rokas12-16, Dragan Tzankov Blvd., Lozenetz Square, 1164 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9521131 Fax: (+359 2) 9520680 E-mail: sofia@rokas.com www.rokas.com/en/

Tocheva&Mandajieva26, Stoyan Mihaylovski Str., fl. 5, 1164 Sofia Tel.: +359 888584000 Email: tocheva@tmlawoffice.bg www.tmlawoffice.bg

Wolf Theiss 29, Atanas Dukov Str., Rainbow Centre, Sofia 1407 Tel.: +359 2 86 13 700 Email: radoslav.mikov@wolftheiss.com www.wolftheiss.com/index.php/Bulgaria.html

Vladimirov&Kiskinov43, Gen. Eduard Totleben Blvd, Fl.1, At.1, Sofia Tel.: +359 888 15 34 12, +359 2 988 18 28 Email: lawyers@vladimirov-kiskinov.eu www.dvlmp.eu

09. CONSULTANTSEnergeo279 B Tzar Boris III Bd, Sofia 1619 Tel.: +359 2 902 6580 Email: office@energeo.bg http://energeo.bg

10. PRAMI Communications135 B, G.S.Rakovski Str., floor 2, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 989 5115 Email: office@amic.bg www.amic.bg

D&D54, W. Gladstone Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 866 98 99 Email: office@ddagency.com www.ddagency.com

Ikona43, Nishava Str., Sofia 1680 Tel.: +359 2 958 30 Email: office@icona-bg.com www.icona-bg.com

MARKETOR3A, Nikolay Haytov Str., ESTE Office Building, fl. 1, office 15, 1113 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 423 07 97 Email: valia@marketorbg.com www.marketorbg.com

CROATIA

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSCroatian Energy Regulatory Agency (HERA)14, Grada Vukovara Street, 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 6323 777, +385 1 6323 700 Fax: +385 1 6115 344 Email: hera@hera.hr www.hera.hr/en/html/index.html

Ministry of the Economy78, Grada Vukovara Street, 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 6106 113, Fax: +385 1 6109 113 E-mail: energetika@mingo.hr http://www.mingo.hr/en

02. OIL & GASINA – Industrija nafte d.d.10, Veceslava Holjevca Ave., p.p. 555, 10002 Zagreb Tel: +385 (0)1 6450 000 Email: ina-besplatni.telefon@ina.hr http://www.ina.hr

PLINACRO d.o.o.88a, Savska Road, 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 6301 777, Fax: +385 1 6301 724 Email: plinacro@plinacro.hr www.plinacro.hr

03. CONSULTANTSCEI24, Miramarska, 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 64 30 600, Fax: +385 1 64 30 626 Email: cei@cei.hr http://cei.hr/en/

04. PRAction Global Communications11, Franje Rackog, 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 455 22 27 Email: maksima@maksima.hr www.actionprgroup.com

05. LAW FIRMSIKRP Rokas & Partners - Par & Gradac Law FirmKralja Drzislava 2, Zagreb Tel.: +385 1 4670281, Fax: +385 1 4612883 E-mail: zagreb@rokas.com www.rokas.com/en/

CYPRUS

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSCommission for the Protection of Competition (C.P.C) of the Republic of Cyprus53, Strovolos Ave., 2018 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 606600 www.competition.gov.cy

Cyprus Association of Renewable Energy Enterprises (SEAPEK)30 Griva Digeni Avenue, 1080 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 665102 Fax: +357 22 669459 www.seapek.com

Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry38, Griva Digeni Ave. & 3 Deligiorgi Str., Tel.: +357 22 889800 Email: chamber@ccci.org.cy www.ccci.org.cy/

Cyprus Energy Agency10-12 Lefkonos Street, 1011 Nikosia Tel.: +357 22 667716, +357 22 667726 Email: anthi.charalambous@cea.org.cy www.cea.org.cy

Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority81-83 Griva Digeni Avenue, IAKOVIDI Building, 3rd Floor, 1080 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 666363 Email: info@cera.org.cy www.cera.org.cy

Cyprus Hydrocarbons Company Ltd53, Strovolos Ave., Victory Building 2018 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 203880 Fax: +357 22 311646

Cyprus Institute of Energy2 Agapinoros & Arch. Makariou III, Megaro IRIS, 1st Floor, 1076 Nicosia Tel. +357 22 606060 Fax:+357 22 606001/2 E-mail:cie@cytanet.com.cy

Cyprus Transmission System Operator of Electrical Energy68, Evangelistrias Street, CY-2057 Strovolos Tel.: +357 22 611 611 Email: mail@dsm.org.cy www.dsm.org.cy/

Cyprus Organisation for Storage and Management of Oil Stocks (COSMOS)27, Heracleous Str., 2nd floor, Office 203, 2040 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 81 81 00 Email: info@kodap.org.cy www.kodap.org.cy

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and EnvironmentLouki Akrita Street, 1411 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 408305 Email: registry@moa.gov.cy www.moa.gov.cy

Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Republic of CyprusEnergy Sector 6, Andreas Araouzos Str., CY-1421, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22867100 Email: perm.sec@mcit.gov.cy www.mcit.gov.cy

Ministry of FinanceMichael Karaoli & Gregori Afxentiou, 1439 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22602723 Email: registry@mof.gov.cy www.mof.gov.cy

71

Ministry of Foreign AffairsPresidential Palace Avenue, 1447 Nicosia Tel: +357 22 651000 Fax: +357 22 661881 Email: info@mfa.gov.cy www.mfa.gov.cy

Natural Gas Public Company (DEFA)13 Limassol Avenue, Demetra Tower, 4th Floor, 2112 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 761 761 Email: info@defa.com.cy www.defa.com.cy

Presidency of the Republic of CyprusPresidential Palace, 1400 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 867400 Email: infopresidency.gov.cy www.presidency.gov.cy

02. SEMI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONSElectricity Authority of Cyprus11 Amfipoleos Str., 2025 Strovolos, 1399 Lefkosia Tel.: +357-22 20 10 00 Email: eac@eac.com.cy www.eac.com.cy

03. INSTITUTIONSCyprus Institute of Energy2 Agapinoros & 3 Arch. Makariou, Megaro IRIS, 1st Floor, 1076 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 606060 Email: cie@cytanet.com.cy www.cie.org.cy

04. AUDIT COMPANIESBAKER TILLYC Hatzopoulou & 30, Grivas Dighenis Avenue 1066 Nicosia Tel: +357 22 458500 Fax: +357 22 751648 Email: info@bakertillyklitou.com www.bakertillyklitou.com

C.O. Cyprus Opportunity Energy Public Company Limited13, Karaiskakis Str., Limassol 3601 Tel.: +357 25 800441 Email: Info@oilandgas.com.cy www.oilandgas.com.cy

Deloitte Cyprus24, Spyrou Kyprianou Avenue, 1075 Nicosia Tel.: + 357 22 360300 Fax: + 357 22 360400 www.deloitte.com

KPMG Limited14, Esperidon Str., 1087 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 209000 Fax: +357 22 678200 Εmail: nicosia@kpmg.com.cy www.kpmg.com/cy/

Kyprianidis, Nicolaou & Associates48, Themistoklis Dervis Avenue, Office 401, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 756585 Email: info@kyprianides.com www.kyprianides.com/

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS3 Artemidos Avenue, Artemidos Tower, 7th & 8th Floors, CY-6020 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 555 000 www.pwc.com/cy

05. LAW FIRMSAntonis Paschalides & CO. LLCMakarios Ave. & Agias Elenis 36, Galaxias Building, Office 502, Nicosia 1061 Tel: +357 22 661 661 www.paschalides.com

Christos M. Triantafyllidis2, Evagorou Str., Irini Megaron, 3rd floor, Office 31-33, 1521 Nicosia www.christriantafyllides.com

Cyprus Legal Answers31, Estias Street, Aradippou, 7041 Larnaka Tel.: +357 99 641265, Fax: +357 22 672 333 Email: info@cypruslegalanswers.com www.cypruslegalanswers.com

Kyriakides & XenofontosTel.: +357 25 352352, Fax: +357 25 352353 www.oilandgaslawyers.eu

Michael Damianos & Co LLC42E, Arch. Makarios Avenue, 1065 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 021212, Fax: +357 22 021213 http://damianoslaw.com

Pamboridis LLC45, Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1070 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 752525, Fax: +357 22 752800 Email: info@pamboridis.com www.pamboridis.com

06. CONSULTANTSANETEL Larnaca District Development Agency2 Ag. Lazarou Str., 7040 Voroklini Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 815280 Email: info@anetel.com www.anetel.com/

Aristodemou Nicolas5A, Afxentiou Str., 2ndFloor, CY-1309, Nicosia Email: aristodn@cytanet.com.cy www.nea-consult.com

Aspen Trust GroupElia House, 77 Limassol Avenue, 2121 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 418888 Fax: +357 22 418890 Email: info@aspentrust.com www.aspentrust.com

BIZSERV32, Georgiou Griva Digeni Ave., 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 375504 Fax: +357 22377583 Email: info@bizserve.eu

Cba Conquest Business Advisors176, Athalassis Avenue, CY2025 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 820800 Email: louismloizou@cba.com.cy www.cba.com.cy/

Envitech Ltd9 Antonis Papadopoulos Str., Paralimni Tel.: +357 23 743440 Email: info@envitech.org www.envitech.org/el

Eurosuccess consulting56 Stavrou Avenue, Karyatides Business Center, Block A2, Office 205, 2035 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 420110 Fax: +357 22 518248 Email: info@eurosc.eu www.eurosc.eu/

Hiteco Ltd33, Egyptou Str., 3087 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 870634 Email: design@hiteco-eng.com www.hiteco-eng.com

Kassinis International ConsultingCentennial Building, Office 101 48, Themistokli Dervi Street, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 663280, Fax: +357 22 669469 Email: info@kassinis-consulting.com www.kassinis-consulting.com

ServPRO Accoutants & Business Consultants28, Kennedy Avenue, Office 401, 1087 Nicosia Tel: +357 22 021100 Fax: +357 22 757566 E-Mail: info@servpro.com.cy www.servpro.com.cy

Shipcon Limassol Ltd5, Spyrou Kyprianou Street, Makedonias Court, office 401, 4001 Mesa Geitonia, Limassol Tel.: + 357 25 334250, Fax: +357 25 255262 E-mail: info@shipcon.eu.com shipcon.eu.com

Value Creation Consulting Ltd13A, Iras Street, 1061 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 100206 Email: info@valuecreation.com.cy www.valuecreation.eu/

07. OIL & GASA.M.K. EcoLeaf Ltd - ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS15, Dodekanisou Str., Anthoupoli, Nicosia 2302 Tel.: +357 22 720670 Email: info@amkgroup.eu www.ecoleaf.eu/

BP Eastern Mediterranean LtdDekhelia Rd, 6301 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 812849 Email: Pambos.Lambrou@ec1.bp.com

EDT OffshorePO Box 54548, Yermasoyia, Limassol 3725 Tel: +357 25 899000, Fax: +357 25 899002 Email: info@edtoffshore.com www.edtoffshore.com

Employers & Industrialists Federation2, Acropoleos Ave. & Glafkou Str., 1511 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 66 51 02 Email: info@oeb.org.cy www.oeb.org.cy/home

Eni Cyprus Ltd81-83, Grivas Digenis Avenue, 1090 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 503232, Fax: +357 22 503001 Email: christiano.salino@eni.com

Exxonmobil Cyprus Inc6 Ag. Prokopiou Str., Eggomi, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 393101

Gulf Agency Company Limited83, Franklin Roosevelt Av., Limassol Tel: +357 25 209100, Fax: +357 25 209201 Email: cyprus@gac.com www.gac.com/cyprus

72

Hellenic Petroleum Cyprus Ltd3, Ellispontou Str., 2015 Strovolos Tel.: +357 22 477000 www.eko.com.cy

Intergaz LtdDhekelia Rd, 6303 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 821 666 Email: info@intergaz.com.cy http://intergaz.com.cy/

Lanitis Green Energy Group Ltd107B Nicou Pattichi Str., 3070 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 822314 www.lgeg.com.cy

Lukoil Cyprus Ltd11, Limassol Ave., 5th Floor, 2112 Aglanja, Nicosia Tel.: +357 70001000 Email: lukoil@lukoil.com.cy www.lukoil.com.cy/

MedServ (Cyprus) Limited13, Karaiskaki Street, 3032 Limassol

Noble Energy International ltd.73, Metochiou Street, 2407 Egnomi, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 449190, Fax: +357 22 449208 Email: jztomich@nobleenergyinc.com www.nobleenergyinc.com

OAG Offshore Rentals East Med LtdTel.: +357 97 884535 Email: info@oageastmed.com www.oageastmed.com

PETROLINA1, Kilkis Str., 6015 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 848000 Email: info@petrolina.com.cy www.petrolina.com.cy/

PPT Aviation Services Ltd1, Kilkis Str., 6015 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 620885

Schlumberger Limited (SCYL Limited)2-4, Makariou III Ave., 1065 Nicosia

SynergasDhekelia Rd, 6303 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 635286

Total G&P Cyprus48, Themistocli Dervi, 5th floor, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 202806, Fax: +357 22 202801 Email: jean-luc.porcheron@total.com total.com

VTT Vasiliko Ltd (A VTTI Group Company)Oil Storage Terminal, 75 Mari, 7736 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 257500, Fax: +357 24 333299 Email: xee@vtti.com www.vtti.com –

08. ELECTRICITYFALCON ELECTRICITY POWER135, Omonoias Ave, 8th floor, 3045 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 028560 Email: info@falconelectricity.com http://falconelectricity.com/

ΔΕΗ Quantum EnergyTel.: +357 22 792200 Email: info@dei-quantumenergy.com www.dei-quantumenergy.com

09. CENTRAL HEATINGLAKO241, Protaras Avenue, 5311 Paralimni Tel.: +357 23 821939 Email: info@lako.com.cy www.lako.com.cy/

A.N.T. METALLOFABRICA LTD6 Rodionos K. Riga, Ag. Athanasios Industrial Estate Tel.: +357 25 724820 Email: info@metallofabrica.com www.metallofabrica.com/

Narkissos AirconCorner Makarious Ave. & Theodorou Potamianou www.narkissoscy.com/articles/view/home

PANARIS & ASSOCIATES ELECTROTHERM LTD42 Gregoris Afxentiou Str., Ayios Dometios, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 783090 Email: panaris@spidernet.com.cy www.panaris.com.cy

iClima LtdOffice 1D, 16, August Str., 1040 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 43 43 43, Email: iclima@mtnmail.com.cy / www.iclima.com.cy

Build Shield8 Oidipodos Str., 6058 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 102 830 Email: info@build-shield.com http://build-shield.com/

Aristides S. Air Control Services Ltd1, 28th October Ave, Block C, Office 208, 2414 Egkomi Tel.: +357 22 444660 Email: info@aristidesaircontrol.com www.aristidesaircontrol.com/

Terza Solar Power22, Archiepiskopou Kyprianou Street Tel.: +357 24 664532 Email: terzasolarpower@gmail.com , info@solarpowercyprus.com www.terzasolarpower.com

MTV WATER SERVICES146 Vasileos Kon/nou, Shop 1,2 Tsirio, Limassol 3080 Tel.: +357 25 389155 Email: info@mtvwaterservices.com www.mtvwaterservices.com

CHR SKARPARIS LTD 22, Mixalakopoulou Str., 1685 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 764308, Email: skarpa@cytanet.com.cy / www.skarparis.com

10. ALTERNATIVE ENERGYA.S.G. Solar Technologies Ltd28, Kinyras Street, Shop A, 8011 Paphos Tel.: 7777 7652, Fax +357 26 822 513 Email: solartech@cytanet.com.cy

Aeoliki Ltd41, Themistokli Dervi Street, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 875707, Fax: +357 22 757778 Email: info@aeoliki.com www.aeoliki.com

Energy Sequel3, Costa Loizou Street, Latsia, 2222 Nicosia Tel: +357 96 276761 E-mail: energysequel@gmail.com www.energysequel.com

Ergo Energy47, 28th October Street, 2414 Engomi - Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 505404 Email: pharconides@ergohomegroup.com www.ergoenergy.com.cy

Neon Energy41-43, Sp. Kyprianou Avenue, 6051 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 636004, Fax: +357 24 636012 Email: info@neonenergy.com.cy www.neonenergy.com/en/cyprus

Save Electricity Solutions4, Elenis Loizidou Street, 2042 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 99 905645, Fax: +357 22 540277 Email: info@save-electricity.com.cy www.save-electricity.com.cy

11. PRACTION GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS6, Kondilaki Street, 1090 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 818 884 Email: natalie.c@actionprgroup.com www.actionprgroup.com

Gnora2, Agathokleous Street, 2000 Strovolos Tel.: +357 22 441922, Fax: +357 22 519743 Email: george@gnora.com www.gnora.com

MarketwayMarketway Building, 20, Karpenisiou Street, 1077 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 391000, Fax: +357 22 391150 Email: ngavrielides@marketway.com.cy www.marketway.com.cy

12. EDUCATION INSTITUTESEuropean University of Cyprus6, Diogenis Str., Engomi, 1516 Nicosia Tel: +357.22.713000 www.euc.ac.cy

Levantine Training Centre5, Spyrou Kyprianou Street, Makedonias Court, Office 401, 4001 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 334250, Fax: +357 25 255262 Email: ltc@shipcon.eu.com www.levantinetrainingcentre.com

UClan Cyprus 12-14 Panepistimiou Avenue, 7080 Pyla Tel.: +357 24 694000, +357 24 812121 Fax: +357 24 81 21 20 info@uclancyprus.ac.cy www.uclancyprus.ac.cy

University of Cyprus1, Panepistimiou Avenue, 1678 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 894000 Email.: info@ucy.ac.cy

GREECE

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSMinistry of Reconstruction of Production, Environment and Energy (YPAPEN)17, Amaliados Str., 115 23 Athens Tel.: +30 213 1515000, Fax: +30 210 6447608 Email: info@ypeka.gr www.ypeka.gr

Public Gas Corporation S.A. (DEPA)92, Marinou Antipa Ave., 141 21 Heraklion Tel: +30 210 2701000, Fax: +30 210 2701010 Email: pr@depa.gr www.depa.gr

Hellenic Transmission System Operator (DESMIE)72 Kastoros Str.,185 45 Piraeus Tel.: +30 210-9466700, Fax: +30 210-9466766 Email: contact@desmie.gr www.desmie.gr

Independent Power Transmission Operator (ADMIE)89 Dyrrachiou Str., 104 43 Athens Tel.: +30 210-5192281, Fax: +30 210-5192504 Email: info@admie.gr www.admie.gr

Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator S.A. (DESFA)357-359, Messogion Ave., 152 31 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210 6501200, Fax: +30 210-6749504 Email: desfa@desfa.gr www.desfa.gr

73

Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC)Patriarhou Grigoriou & Neapoleos, P.O Box 60092, 153 10 Agia Paraskevi Tel.: +30 210-6506700 Fax: +30 210-6506748 Email: info@eeae.gr www.eeae.gr

Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator S.A. (DEDDIE)20, Perraivou & 5 Kallirrois Str., 117 43 Athens Tel./Fax: +30 210-9281698 Email: infodeddie@deddie.gr www.deddie.gr

Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (KAPE) 19th km Marathonos Ave, 19009 Pikermi Tel.: +30 210-6603300, Fax: +30 210-6603301 Email: cres@cres.gr www.cres.gr

Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE) 132, Pireos Str., 118 54 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3727400, Fax: +30 210-3255460 Email: info@rae.gr www.rae.gr

Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research11, Tsami Karatasou Str., 117 42 Athens Tel.: +30 210-9211200, Fax: +30 210-9228130 Email: info@iobe.gr www.iobe.gr

02. NON GOVERNMENTALInstitute of Energy For South-East Europe (IENE)3, Alex. Soutsou Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3628457 Fax: +30 210-3646144 Email: secretariat@iene.gr www.iene.gr

Operator of Electricity Market S.A.72, Kastoros Str., 185 45 Piraeus Tel.: +30 211-880700, Fax: +30 211-8806766 Email: info@lagie.gr www.lagie.gr

03. FEDERATIONS - UNIONSFederation of Hellenic Recycling & Energy Recovery Industries57, Ethnikis Antistaseos Str., 152 31 Halandri Tel.: +30 210-6931 011, Fax: +30 210-6931012 Email: info@sevian.gr www.sevian.gr

Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEB)5, Xenofontos Str., 105 57 Athens Tel.: +30 211 5006000, Fax: +30 210 3222929 Email: info@sev.org.gr www.sev.org.gr

04. ASSOCIATIONSHellenic Association for the Cogeneration of Heat and Power7, Ioustinianou Str., 114 73 Athens Tel.: +30 210 8219118, Fax: +30 210-8821917 Email: hachp@hachp.gr www.hachp.gr

Hellenic Association of Independent Power ProducersEmail: info@haipp.gr www.haipp.gr

Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Energy Producers (SPEF)3, Dimokratias Str., 151 21 Pefki Tel./Fax: +30 210-6854035 Email: info@spef.gr www.spef.gr

Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Investors (PASYF) 1, Archimidous Str., Nea Alikarnassos, 716 01 Iraklio Creta Tel./Fax: +30 2821-078409 Email: info@pasyf.gr www.pasyf.gr

Hellenic Biofuels & Biomass Association (SBIBE)4, Ioanni Tsalouchidis Str., 542 48 Thessaloniki Tel.: +30 2310 330501 Fax: +30 2310 330502 Email: info@sbibe.gr www.sbibe.gr

Hellenic Petroleum Marketing Companies Association46, Ionos Dragoumi Str., 115 28 Athens Tel.: +30 210 7291050, Fax: +30 210-7245172 Email: info@seepe.gr www.seepe.gr

Hellenic Small Hydropower Association (HSHA)23, Agias Lavras Str., 141 21 Iraklio Tel.: +30 210-2811917, Fax: +30 210-2837372 Email: info@microhydropower.gr www.microhydropower.gr

Hellenic Union of Industries Consumers of Energy (UNICEN) 57, Ethnikis Antistaseos Str., 152 31 Halandri Tel.: +30 210-6861489, Fax: +30 210-6283496 Email: info@unicen.gr www.unicen.gr

Hellenic Wind Energy Association (HWEA) ELETAEN306, kifissias Ave., 1st Floor, 152 32 Athens Tel./Fax: +30 210-8081755 Email: eletaen@eletaen.gr www.eletaen.gr

Greek Association of RES Electricity Producers85, Mesogion Str., 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210- 6968418, Fax: +30 210-6968031 Email: info@hellasres.gr www.hellasres.gr

Greek Biomass Association (HELLABIOM)150, Andrea Papandreou Avenue, 165 61 Glifada Tel.: +30 210 9652031, Fax: +30 210-9652081 Email: info@hellabiom.gr www.hellabiom.gr

05. ELECTRICITYElpedison Energy8-10, Sorou Str., Building C, 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 211-2117400, Fax: +30 210-3441255 Email: info.energy@elpedison.gr www.elpedison.gr

Heron S.A.85, Mesogion Ave., 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 213-0333000, Fax: +30 210-6968690 Email: info@heron.gr www.heron.gr

M&M Gas5-7, Patroklou Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-68777300, Fax: +30 210-6877400 Email: info@mytilineosgroup.gr www.mytilineos.gr

Protergia S.A.8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-3448300, Fax: +30 210-3448471 Email: dinos.benroubi@protergia.gr www.protergia.gr

Public Power Corporation S.A. (DEH)30, Halkokondili Str., 104 32 Athens Tel.: +30 210-5230301, Fax: +30 210-5237727 Email: info@dei.com.gr www.dei.gr

06. FUELSAegean S.A.10, Akti Kondili Str., 185 45 Piraeus Tel.: +30 210-4586000, Fax: +30 210-4586241 Email: info@aefeanoil.gr www.aegeanoil.gr

Avinoil S.A.12A, Herodou Attikou Str., 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-8093500, Fax: +30 210-8093555 Email: info@avinoil.gr www.avinoil.gr

BP Elliniki S.A. Petroleum26, Kifissias Av. & 2, Paradissou Str.,151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6887777, Fax: +30 210-6887697 Email: info@bp.com www.bp.com

Coral S.A.12A, Herodou Attikou Str., 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-9476000, Fax: +30 210-9476500 Email: info@coralenergy.gr www.coralenergy.gr

Coral Gas (Hellas)26-28, G. Averof Str., 142 32 Perissos Tel.: +30 210-9491000, Fax: +30 210-9407987 Email: info@coralgas.gr www.coralgas.gr

Cyclon Hellas S.A.124, Megaridos Avenue, 193 00 Aspropyrgos Tel.: +30 210-8093900, Fax: +30 210-8093999 Email: info@cyclon.gr www.cyclon.gr

Eko AEBE8, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-7705201, Fax: +30 210-7705847 Email: info@eko.gr www.eko.gr

Elinoil S.A.33, Pigon Str., 145 64 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-6241500, Fax: +30 210-6241509 Email: info@elinoil.gr www.elin.gr

74

Eteka S.A.142, Dimokratias Avenue, 188 63 Perama Tel.: +30 210-4022401 Fax: +30 210-4415879 Email: info@eteka.com www.eteka.com.gr

Hellenic Fuels S.A.8, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6887111 Fax: +30 210-6887100 Email: info_hellenicfuels@helpe.gr www.hellenicfuels.gr

Hellenic Petroleum Group (ELPE)8A, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6302000, Fax: +30 210-6302510 Email: info@helpe.gr www.helpe.gr

Mamidoil-Jetoil S.A.27, Evrota & Kiphissou Str., 145 64 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-8763100, Fax: +30 210-8055850 Email: lenam@jetoil.gr www.jetoil.gr

Motor Oil Gas S.A.12A, Herodou Attikou Str., 151 24 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-8094000 Fax: +30 210-8094444 Email: info@moh.gr www.moh.gr

Revoil S.A.5, Kapodistriou Str., 166 72 Vari Tel.: +30 210 8976000, Fax: +30 210 8972137 Email: info@revoil.gr www.revoil.gr

07. OIL & GASCopelouzos Group209, Kifissias Avenue, 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6141106-115 Fax: +30 210-6140371 Email: info@copelouzos.gr www.copelouzos.gr

Energean Oil & Gas32, Kifissias Ave. Atrina Center, 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-8174200, Fax: +30 210-8174299 Email: info@energean.com www.energean.com

EPA Attikis11, Sof. Venizelou Ave. & Serron Str., 141 23 Lykovrisi Tel.: +30 210-3406000, Fax: +30 210-3406060 Email: info@aerioattikis.gr www.aerioattikis.gr

EPA Thessalias219, Farsalon Str., 413 35 Larissa Tel.: +30 2410-582300, Fax: +30 2410-582323 Email: info@epathessalia.gr www.epathessalia.gr

EPA Thessalonikis 256, Monastiriou & 7, Glinou Str., 546 28 Thessaloniki Tel.: +30 2310-584000, Fax: +30 2310-500577 Email: info@epathessaloniki.gr www.epathessaloniki.gr

Prometheus Gas 209, Kifissias Avenue, 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6141106, Fax: +30 210-6140371 Email: info@copelouzos.gr www.copelouzos.gr

Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG Greece, BranchAthens Tower, 21st Floor, 2-4, Messogion Avenue 115 27 Athens Tel.: +30 210-7454613, Fax: +30 210-7454300 Email: tapgreece@tap-ag.com www.trans-adriatic-pipeline.com/gr

08. ALTERNATIVE ENERGYABB13th klm National Road Athinon-Lamias 144 52 Metamorfosi Tel.: +30 210-2891500, Fax: +30 210-2891599 Email: abb@gr.abb.com www.abb.gr

Big Solar 100, Nato Avenue, 193 00 Aspropyrgos Tel.: +30 210-5509090, Fax: +30 210-5594559 Email: info@bigsolar.gr www.bigsolar.gr

Biosar Energy Aktor-Ellaktor25, Ermou Str., 145 64 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-8185200, Fax: +30 210-8185201 Email: biosar@biosar.gr www.biosar.gr

EDF EN Hellas120 ,Vas. Sofias Avenue, 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6462079, Fax: +30 210-6431420 Email: een@eenhellas.gr www.edf-energies-nouvelles.com

Enteka2, Tichis Str., 152 33 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210-6816803, Fax: +30 210-6816460 Email: enteka@enteka.gr www.enteka.gr

Gamesa9, Adrianiou Str., 115 25 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6753300, Fax: +30 210-6753305 Email: gehellas@gamesacorp.com www.gamesacorp.com

Mechatron226, Kifissias Avenue, 152 31 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210-6899314, Fax: +30 210-6899314 www.mechatron.eu

PPC Renewables S.A.3, Kapodistriou Str., 153 43 Ag. Paraskevi Tel.: +30 211-2118000, Fax: +30 211-2118089 Email: info@ppcr.gr www.ppcr.gr

Rokas Renewables S.A.3, Rizareiou Str., 152 33 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210-8774100, Fax: +30 210-8774111 Email: info@rokasgroup.gr www.rokasrenewables.gr

Schneider Electric Greece19th klm National Road Athinon-Lamias 146 71 Nea Erithrea Tel.: +30 210-6295200, Fax: +30 210-6295210 Email: gr-info@schneider-electric.com www.schneider-electric.gr

Silcio38-40, Kapodistriou Avenue, 151 23 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6848506, Fax: +30 210-6838215 Email: info@silcio.gr www.silcio.gr

SMA Solar Technology AG 102, V.Tsitsani Str., 166 75 Glifada Tel.: +30 210-9856660, Fax: +30 210-9856670 Email: Info@SMA-Hellas.com www.SMA-Hellas.com

Solar Cells Hellas64, Kifissias Avenue & Premetis Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-9595159, Fax: +30 210-9537618 Email: info@schellas.gr www.schellas.gr

Terna Energy S.A.85, Messogion Avenue, 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6968300, Fax: +30 210-6968096 Email: info@terna-energy.com www.terna-energy.com

09. LAW FIRMSKelemenis & Co. Law Firm5, Tsakalof Str., Melathron Centre, 106 73 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3612800, Fax: +30 210-3612820 Email: enquiries@kelemenis.com www.kelemenis.com

Metaxas Law154, Asklipiou Str., 114 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3390748, Fax: +30 210-3390749 Email: info@metaxaslaw.gr www.metaxaslaw.gr

Rokas International Law Firm25 & 25A, Boukourestiou Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3616816, Fax: +30 210-3615425 Email: athens@rokas.com, m.todorovic@rokas.com www.rokas.com

10. CONSULTANTS Asprofos Engineering S.A.284 El. Venizelou Ave., 176 75 Kallithea Tel.: +30 210-9491600, Fax: +30 210-9191610 Email: etsapra@asprofos.gr www.asprofos.gr

Consolidated Contractors Company 62B Kifissias Avenue, PO Box 61092, 151 10 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-6182000, Fax: +30 210-6199224 Email: nsaid@ccc.gr www.ccc.gr

11. EMBASSIES Embassy of Boulgaria33A, Stratigou Kallari Str., 154 52 P. Psychiko Tel.: +30 210-6748105, Fax: +30 210-6748130 Email: Embassy.Athens@mfa.bg www.mfa.bg

Embassy of Canada4, Ioannou Gennadiou Street, 115 21 Athens Tel.: +30-210-7273400 Fax: +30-210-7273480 Email: athns@international.gc.ca www.canadainternational.gc.ca/greece-grece/

Embassy of Cyprus16, Irodotou Str., 106 75 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3734800, Fax: +30 210-7258886 Email: cyempkl@hol.gr www.mfa.gov.cy

Embassy of France7, Vas. Sofias Ave., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3391000, Fax: +30 210-3391009 Email: ambafran@hol.gr www.ambafrance-gr.org

Embassy of Germany3, Karaoli & Dimitriou Str., 106 75 Athens Tel.: +30 210-7285111, Fax: +30 210-7285335 www.athen.diplo.de

75

Embassy of Israel1, Marathonodromon Str., 154 52 P. Psychiko Tel.: +30 210-6705500, Fax: +30 210-6705555 Email: pr@athens.mfa.gov.il embassies.gov.il

Embassy of Romania7, Emmanouil Benaki Str., 154 52 P. Psychiko Tel.: +30 210-6728875, Fax: +30 210-6728883 Email: secretariat@romaniaemb.gr atena.mae.ro

Embassy of the Russian Federation 28, Nikiforou Lytra Str., 154 52 P. Psychiko Tel.: +30 210-6725235, Fax: +30 210-6749708 Email: embraf@otenet.gr www.greece.mid.ru

Embassy of Ucraine2, Stephanou Delta Str., 152 37 Filothei Tel.: +30 210-6800230, Fax: +30 210-6854154 Email: emb_gr@mfa.gov.ua greece.mfa.gov.ua

Embassy of United States Of America91, Vas. Sofias Ave., 101 60 Athens Tel.: +30 210-7212951 Fax: +30 210-7212951 Email: AthensAmEmb@state.gov athens.usembassy.gov

12. CHAMBERS American-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce109-111, Messoghion Ave., 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6993559, Fax: +30 210-6985686 Email: info@amcham.gr www.amcham.gr

Greek-German Chamber10-12, Dorileou Str., 115 21 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6419000, Fax: +30 210-6445175 Email: ahkathen@mail.ahk-germany.de griechenland.ahk.de

Union of Hellenic Chambers 6, Akadimias Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3387104, Fax: +30 210-3622320 Email: info@acci.gr www.acci.gr

13. INDUSTRY Mytilineos Group5-7, Patroklou Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-6877300 Fax: +30 210-6877400 Email: info@mytilineos.gr www.mytilineos.gr

Hellenic Halyvourgia86A, Othonos & Kokkota Str., 145 61 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-6283400 Fax: +30 210-8015614 Email: info@hlv.gr www.hlv.gr

Allouminion Ellados8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-3693000, Fax: +30 210-3693108 Email: info@alhellas.gr www.alhellas.com

Metka Group8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-2709200, Fax: +30 210-2759528 Email: info@metka.gr www.metka.com

Elemka8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-8117000 Fax: +30 210-8117070 Email: info@elemka.gr www.elemka.gr

ROMANIA

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSANAR-National Agency Romanian Water6, Edgar Quinet Street, 010018, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 312 2174 Email: relatii_cu_publicul@rowater.ro www.rowater.ro

ANRE-National Energy Regulator3, Constantin Nacu Street, 020995, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 327 8174 Email: anre@anre.ro www.anre.ro

Competition Council Romania1, Piata Presei Libere, building D1, 013701, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 1198 Email: presedinte@consiliulconcurentei.ro www.consiliulconcurentei.ro

Constanta County Council51, Tomis Avenue, 900725, Constanta Tel.: +4 0241 488 404 Email: consjud@cjc.ro www.cjc.ro

Environment Protection Agency Constanta23, Unirii Street, Constanta Tel.: +4 024 154 6596 Email: office@apmct.anpm.ro apmct.anpm.ro

Mayor of Corbu38, Principala Street, Corbu, Constanta County Tel.: +4 024 176 5100 Email: secretariat@primariacorbu.ro www.primariacorbu.ro

National Agency for Mineral Resources36-38 Mendeleev Str., 010366, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 313 2204 Email: namr@namr.ro www.namr.ro

Nuclear Agency & Radioactive Waste21-25 Mendeleev Str., 010362, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 316 8001 Email: contact@nuclearagency.ro www.agentianucleara.ro

Romanian Government1 Victoriei Square, 011791, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 314 3400 Email: drp@gov.ro www.gov.ro

Romanian Ministry of Economy152 Victoriei Avenue, 010096, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 5426 Email: dezbateri_publice@minind.ro www.minind.ro

Romanian Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes12 Libertatii Avenue, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 408 9500 Email: srp@mmediu.ro www.mmediu.ro

Romanian Ministry of Regional Development17 Apolodor Street, North side, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 211 1409 Email: info@mdrap.ro www.mdrap.ro

02. NON GOVERNMENTACUE-Association of Energy Utilities Companies54B, Nordului Road, 014104, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 3265 Email: office@acue.ro www.acue.ro

AFEER-The Association of Electricity Suppliers in Romania7-9, Tudor Stefan Street, 1st floor, ap 2, 011655, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 6031 Email: office@afeer.ro www.afeer.ro

APER-Romanian Energy Policy Association13, 13 Septembrie Road, 050711, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 9829 Email: aper@aper.ro www.aper.ro

CNR-CME-Romanian National Comitee of World Energy Council1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, 020371, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 211 4155 Email: ghbalan@cnr-cme.ro www.cnr-cme.ro

CRE-Romanian Energy Center16-18, Hristo Botev Ave, 030236, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 5741 Email: office@crenerg.org www.crenerg.org

EURISC Romania82-84, Mihai Eminescu Street, B entrance, ap. 19, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 212 2102 Email: eurisc@eurisc.org www.eurisc.org

Foreign Investors Council Romania11, Ion Campineanu Street, 3rd floor, Sector 1, 010031, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1931 Email: office@fic.ro www.fic.ro

Greenpeace CEE Romania18 Ing. Vasile Cristescu Str., 021985, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 435 5743 Email: info.romania@greenpeace.org www.greenpeace.org

Institute for Studies and Hydropower - ISPH SA293 Vitan Road, 031293, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 314 7270 Email: info@isph.ro www.isph.ro

Petroleum Club of Romania38, Dragos Voda Street, ap. 1, 020747, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 102 0605 Email: petroleumclub@petroleumclub.ro www.petroleumclub.ro

Romania Energy Center319, Calarasilor Road, 030622, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 432 8737 Email: energy@roec.ro www.roec.ro

76

Romania Photovoltaic Industry Association58-60, Gheorghe Polizu Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Email: office@rpia.ro www.rpia.ro

Romanian Association of Biomass and Biogas (ARBIO)37, Putul lui Zamfir Street, 4th floor, 011684, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 308 6271 Email: office@arbio.ro www.arbio.ro

Romanian Black Sea Titleholders Association169A, Floreasca Road, building A, office 2099, Sector 1, Bucharest

Romanian Electricity Suppliers Association7-9, Tudor Stefan Street, ap. 2, 011655, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 6031 Email: office@afeer.ro www.afeer.ro

Romanian Wind Power Association17 C.A. Rosetti Street, office 216, Sector 2, Bucharest Email: contact@rwea.ro www.rwea.ro

03. ENERGY COMPANIESCEZ Romania2B, Ion Ionescu de la Brad Street, 1st floor, 013813, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel: +4 021 269 2566 Email: office@cez.ro www.cez.ro

E.ON Romania12 Justitiei Street, 540069, Targu Mures, Mures County Tel.: +4 0265 200 366 Email: office.eero@eon-romania.ro www.eon.com

Electrica Furnizare S.A.1A, Stefan cel Mare Road, 011736, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 208 5999 Email: office@electricafurnizare.ro www.electrica.ro

Enel Romania127, Giurgiului Road, 04066, Sector 4, Bucharest www.enel.ro

GDF SUEZ Energy Romania4-6, Marasesti Avenue, 040254, Sector 4, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 2000 www.gdfsuez.ro

General Electric Romania169A, Floreasca Street, 014472, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0372 074 517 Email: adrianamirela.mircea@ge.com www.ge.com

Hidroelectrica S.A.15-17, Ion Mihalache Avenue, 011171, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 2500 Email: secretariat.general@hidroelectrica.ro www.hidroelectrica.ro

InterAgro1-3, Verii Street, 011971, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 210 3700 Email: office@interagro.ro www.interagro.ro

Monsson Group Romania158, Mamaia Avenue, 900534, Constanta Tel.: +4 0241 550 353 Email: office@monsson.eu www.monsson.eu

Nuclearelectrica S.A.65, Polona Street, 010505, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 203 8200 Email: office@nuclearelectrica.ro www.nuclearelectrica.ro

Renovatio Trading S.R.L.55, Primaverii Avenue, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 2010 Email: office@renovatiotrading.ro www.renovatiotrading.ro

Termoelectrica S.A.1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 7305 Email: office.economic@termoelectrica.ro www.termoelectrica.ro

Transelectrica2-4, Olteni Street, 030786, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 5822 Email: office@transelectrica.ro www.transelectrica.ro

Verbund Romania31-33, Carol Avenue, Bucharest Tel.: +43 (0)50313-53744 Email: florian.seidl@verbund.com www.verbund.com

Vestas Romania11-15, Tipografilor Str., Building B3, 013714 Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 403 3099 Email: vestas-romania@vestas.com www.vestas.com

04. OIL & GASAggreko7A, Centura Avenue, Tunari, Ilfov 077180 Tel.: +4 031 405 2208 Email: office.romania@aggreko.ae www.aggreko.com

Chevron Romania Exploration and Production3-5, Presei Libere Square, City Gate South Tower, 013702, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 207 6110 www.chevron.ro

Exxon Mobil Romania169A, Floreasca Road, building A, 014472, Sector 1, Bucharest www.exxonmobileurope.com

Gas Plus75-77, Buzesti Street, 7th floor, 011013 Bucharest Email: info@gasplus.it www.gasplus.it

GSP-Petroleum Services Group97, Pipera - Tunari Str., 077190 Voluntari, IIfov Tel.: +4 0372 080 243 Email: sales@gspoffshore.com www.gspoffshore.com

Lukoil Romania6, Elena Vacarescu Str., 020271, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 227 2106 Email: office@romania.lukoil.com www.lukoil.ro

MOL Romania4-6, Daniel Danielopolu Avenue, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 204 8500 www.molromania.ro

OMV Petrom22, Coralilor Str., Petrom City, Sector 1, 013329 Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 402 2201 Email: office@petrom.com www.petrom.com

Petro Ventures4, Constantin Daniel Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0721 936 235 Email: office@ijdelea.ro

Petroceltic Ireland3, Ermil Pangratti Street, ap. 4, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +353 1 421 8300 Email: info@petroceltic.ie www.petroceltic.com

Petrolexportimport SA72, Unirii Avenue, building J3C, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 8459 Email: office@petex.ro www.petex.ro

PetromarConstanta Harbour, Berth 34, 900900, Constanta Tel.: +4 0241 555 255 Email: valeriu.irimioiu@petromar-resources.ro

PETROTEL - LUKOIL S.A.235, Mihai Bravu Street, Ploiesti, Prahova County Tel.: +4 0244 504 000 Email: office@petrotel.lukoil.com www.lukoil.ro

Romgaz S.A.4, Constantin Motas Square, 551130, Medias, Sibiu County Tel.: +4 0269 201 020 Email: secretariat@romgaz.ro www.romgaz.ro

Rompetrol3-5, Presei Libere Square, City Gate Building, Northern Tower, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 0800 Email: office@rompetrol.com www.rompetrol.ro

Sterling Midia Resources11-13, Andrei Muresanu Str., 011841, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 3256 Email: info@sterling-resources.com www.sterling-resources.com

Upetrom Group Romania97, Pipera-Tunari Str., 077190, Voluntari, Ilfov County Tel.: +4 021 308 0200 Email: office@upetrom.com www.upetrom.com

05. GAS DISTRIBUTIONDistrigaz Sud Retele S.R.L.4-6, Marasesti Avenue, 040254, Sector 4, Bucharest www.distrigazsud-retele.ro

Transgaz1, Constantin Motas Square, 551130 Medias, Sibiu County Tel.: +4 0269 803 333 Email: cabinet@transgaz.ro www.transgaz.ro

77

06. COALOltenia Energetical Complex5, Alexandru Ioan Cuza Str.Targu Jiu, Gorj County Tel.: +4 0253 205 401 Email: office@ceoltenia.ro www.ceoltenia.ro

Romanian National Coal Company S.A.2, Timisoara Str., 332015 Petrosani, Hunedoara County Tel.: +4 0254 506 100 Email: office@cnh.ro www.cnh.ro

07. EQUIPMENT AND MAINTENANCEABB S.R.L.169A, Floreasca Road, building A1, 014459, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0372 158 200 www.abb.com.ro

Adrem Invest20A, Aleea Alexandru, 011823, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 233 5920 www.adrem.ro

Alstom Romania63-69, Iacob Felix Street, Premium Plaza building, 12 floor, 011033, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 306 9500 www.alstom.com/alstom-worldwide

Ansaldo Nucleare SPA - Romania65, Dacia Avenue, ap. 2, 010405, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 211 3991 Email: villabruna@ansaldo.ro www.ansaldonucleare.it

CONDMAG S.A.52, Avram Iancu Street, 500075, Brasov Tel.: +4 0268 414 954 Email: condmag@condmag.ro www.condmag.ro

Egnatia Rom65, Sf. Maria Street, 011495, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 208 2934 Email: egnatia.rom@egnatia-rom.com www.egnatia-rom.ro

Energheia Group Romania SRL34, IC Bratianu Avenue, 6th floor, ap.16, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 432 9031 Email: info@energheiaitalia.it www.energheiagroup.it

ICME ECAB SA 42, Drumul intre Tarlale Street, 032982, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 209 0111 Email: Bucharest@icme.vionet.gr www.cablel.ro

Luxten76, Parang Street, 012328, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 668 8819 Email: office@luxten.com www.luxten.com

RIG Service SA18, Marc Aureliu Street, nr. 18, 900744, Constanta Tel.: +4 0241 586 406 Email: office@rig-service.com www.rig-service.com

Romenergo242-246, Floreasca Road, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 233 0771 Email: office@romenergo.ro www.romenergo.ro

Schneider Electric Romania11, Dinu Vintila Street, Euro Tower, 1st floor, 021101, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 203 0606 Email: ro-csc@ro.schneider-electric.com www.schneider-electric.ro

Siemens Romania24, Preciziei Street, West Gate Park, Building H3, 062204, Sector 6, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 629 6400 Email: siemens.ro@siemens.com www.cee.siemens.com

Smart Solar30, A. S. Puskin Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: + 4 0758 110 110 Email: romania@smart.com.tr www.smart-solar.eu

TIAB S.A.17, Pictor Verona Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 302 1230 Email: office@tiabsa.ro www.tiab.ro

08. LAW FIRMSBiris Goran77, Emanoil Porumbaru Street, 011424, Sector 1,Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 260 0710 Email: office@birisgoran.ro www.birisgoran.ro

Bostina si asociatii70, Jean Louis Calderon Street, 020039, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 319 4466 Email: office@bostina.eu www.bostinalawyers.eu

Bulboaca si Asociatii31, Vasile Lascar Str., 020492, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 408 8900 Email: office@bulboaca.com www.bulboaca.com

Clifford Chance Badea28-30, Academiei Str., 010016, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 666 6100 Email: daniel.badea@cliffordchance.com www.cliffordchance.com/people_and_places/places/europe/romania.html#

CMS Cameron McKenna211-15, Tipografilor Str., B3-B4, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 407 3800 Email: gabriel.sidere@cms-cmck.com www.cms-cmck.com

Dentons28C, C. Budisteanu Str., 010775, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 312 4950 Email: anda.todor@dentons.com www.dentons.com

DLA Piper89-97, Grigore Alexandrescu Street, East Wing, 1st Floor, 010624, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0372 155 800 Email: bucharest@dlapiper.com www.dlapiper.com

IK Rokas&Partners45, Polona Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 7405 Email: bucharest@rokas.com www.rokas.com

Kinstellar Romania8-10, Nicolae Iorga Str., 010434, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 307 1619 Email: daniel.torsher@kinstellar.com www.kinstellar.com

Musat & Associates43, Aviatorilor Avenue, 011853, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 5900 Email: musat@musat.ro www.musat.ro

NNDKP1A, Bucharest-Ploiesti Road, Entrance A, 013681, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 201 1200 Email: office@nndkp.ro www.nndkp.ro

PeliFilip169A, Calea Floreasca Road, Building B, 014459, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 527 2000 Email: office@pelifilip.com www.pelifilip.com

Popovici, Nitu & Associates239, Dorobanti Road, 010567, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 317 7919 Email: office@pnpartners.ro www.pnpartners.ro

RTPR Allen&Overy15, Charles de Gaulle Square, nr. 15, 011857, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 405 7777 Email: bucharest@rtprallenovery.com www.allenovery.com

Schoenherr & Associates30, Dacia Avenue, 010413, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 319 6790 Email: office.romania@schoenherr.eu www.schoenherr.eu

Serban&Musneci Associates54, Mircea Zorileanu Str., Sector 1, 012056 Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 4478 Email: office@serbanmusneci.ro www.serbanmusneci.ro

Tuca Zbarcea & Associates4-8, Nicolae Titulescu Avenue, America House, West Wing, 011141, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 204 8890 Email: office@tuca.ro www.tuca.ro

Voicu si Filipescu26-28, Stirbei Voda Str., 010113, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 314 0200 Email: office@vf.ro www.voicufilipescu.ro

Wolf Theiss58-60, Gheorghe Polizu Str., 011062, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 308 8100 Email: bryan.jardine@wolftheiss.com www.wolftheiss.com

09. EDUCATION INSTITUTESOil&Gas University Ploiesti39, Bucuresti Ave., 100680, Ploiesti, Prahova County Tel.: +4 0244 573 171 Email: rectorat@upg-ploiesti.ro www.upg-ploiesti.ro

Romanian Academy125, Victoriei Road, 010071, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 212 8651 Email: moancea@acad.ro www.acad.ro

Valahia University18-20, Unirii Av., 130082, Targoviste, Dambovita County Tel.: +4 0245 206 101 Email: rectorat@valahia.ro www.valahia.ro

78

10. PR COMPANIESAction Pr35 Alexandru Constantinescu Str., Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 224 2270 Email: ruxandra.s@actionprgroup.com www.actionprgroup.com

Aegis Media Central Services (AMCS)11, Grigore Mora Str., 011885,Sector 1, Bucharest Email: razvan.varabiescu@aemedia.com www.aemedia.com

AMICOM39, Louis Pasteur Str., 050534, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 228 4437 www.amicom.ro

Centrade Saatchi & Saatchi133, Serban Voda Street, building D+E, 040205, Sector 4, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 730 0600 Email: mona.opran@saatchi.ro www.saatchi.com

GMP PR4, Teodor Stefanescu Street, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 212 1992 Email: office@gmp.ro www.gmp.ro

GolinHarris17, Ceasornicului Str., 014111, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 0051 Email: office.bucharest@golinharris.com www.golinharris.ro

Grayling PR9, Maltopol Street, 011047, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 335 5547 Email: Cristi.Cretzan@grayling.com www.grayling.com

Media Investment3, Praga Street, 011801, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 206 2200 Email: office@mediainvestment.ro www.mediainvestment.ro

OMD55, Floreasca Road, Grand Offices Building, 014453, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1091 Email: romania@omd.com www.omd.com

Pi231, Primaverii Avenue, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 232 0325 Email: office@pi2.ro www.pi2.ro

Premium PR23, Eroilor Sanitari Av., 050471, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 0152 Email: office@premiumpr.ro www.premiumpr.ro

The Group3, Praga Street, 011801, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 206 2200 Email: office@thegroup.ro www.thegroup.ro

Total PR68, Basarabia Avenue, 4th floor, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 437 0110 Email: contact@totalpr.ro www.totalpr.ro

V+O Communication40, Hristache Pitarul Str., 011626, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 9195 Email: office@vando.ro www.vando.ro

11. EMBASSIESCanadian Embassy in Romania1-3, Tuberozelor Street, 011411, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 307 5000 Email: bucst@international.gc.ca www.canadainternational.gc.ca/romania-roumanie

Greek Embassy in Romania-Commercial Office1-3, Pache Protopopescu Avenue, 021403, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 210 0748 Email: ecocom-bucharest@mfa.gr www.mfa.gr/bucharest

United Arab Emirates Embassy in Romania4, Modrogan Alley, 011826, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 7676 Email: amb@uaeembassy.ro www.uae-embassy.ae

USA Embassy in Romania4-6, Dr. Liviu Librescu Str., 015118, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 200 3300 Email: infobuch@state.gov romania.usembassy.gov

12. BANKSBanca Romaneasca11 Dinu Vintila Street, Euro Tower Building, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 305 9000 Email: office@brom.ro www.banca-romaneasca.ro

Erste Group Banca Comerciala Romana5, Regina Elisabeta Ave, 030016, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 407 4200 Email: contact.center@bcr.ro www.bcr.ro

ING Bank Romania48, Iancu de Hunedoara Ave, 011745, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1600 Email: contact@ing.ro www.ing.ro

International Finance Corporation (IFC)31, Vasile Lascar Street, UTI building, 020491, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 201 0311 Email: amihaescu@ifc.org www.ifc.org

Piraeus Bank Romania34-36, Carol I Avenue, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 6969 Email: office@piraeusbank.ro www.piraeusbank.ro

Raiffeisen Bank S.A.246C, Calea Floreasca Road, Sky Tower, 014476, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 306 3002 Email: centrala@raiffeisen.ro www.raiffeisen.ro

Romanian International Bank67, Unirii Avenue, Building G2A, Section 1 & 2, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 9515 Email: office@roib.ro www.roib.ro

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)56-60, Iancu de Hunedoara Avenue, Metropolis Center, West Wing, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 7100 www.ebrd.com

The European Investment Bank (EIB)31, Vasile Lascar Str., 020492, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 208 6400 Email: Bucharest@eib.org www.eib.org

13. INVESTORSCapital Partners56, Dacia Avenue, 010407, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 225 1000 Email: office@capitalpartners.ro www.capitalpartners.ro

Enterprise Investors36, Stirbei Boda Str., Domus Cntr, 010113 Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 314 6685 Email: info@ei.com.ro www.ei.com.pl

Maison Economique - Ubifrance- Roumanie11, Nicolae Lorga Street, 010432, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 305 6780 Email: bucarest@ubifrance.fr www.ubifrance.com

14. AUDITDeloitte Romania4-8, Nicolae Titulescu Road, Est entrance, 0111141, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1661 www.deloitte.com

Ernst & Young63-69, lacob Felix Street, Premium Plaza, 011033, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 402 4000 Email: office@ro.ey.com www.ey.com

KPMG69-71, Bucharest-Ploiesti Road, Victoria Business Park DN1, 013685, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0372 377 800 Email: kpmgro@kpmg.ro www.kpmg.com

15. FUEL AND LUBRICANTSENI Romania S.R.L.169A Floreasca Road, Building A, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0316 206 300 www.eni.com

16. CHAMBERS OF COMMERCEBucharest Chamber of Commerce and Industry CCIB2, Octavian Goga Avenue, 030982, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 319 0114 Email: drc@ccir.ro www.ccir.ro

Constanta Chamber of Commerce185A, Alex. Lapusneanu Ave, 900457, Constanta Tel.: +4 024 161 9854 Email: office@ccina.ro www.ccina.ro

79

Romania-France Chamber of Commerce21, Poet Andrei Muresanu Street, 011841, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 317 1062 Email: ccifer@ccifer.ro www.ccifer.ro

17. IMFInternational Monetary Fund7, Halelor Street, 030118, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 311 5833 Email: ldragan@imf.org www.fmi.ro

18. ENERGY TRADERSFreepoint Commodities157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, SW1W 9SP, London, UK Tel.: +44 (0)203 262 6000 Email: londonoffice@freepoint.com www.freepoint.com

Grivco SA1B, Garlei Str., Grivco Building, 013721, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 9700 Email: grivco@grivco.ro www.grivco.ro

18. CONSULTANTSISPE-Institute for Studies and Power Engineering1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, 20371, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 282 1076 Email: office@ispe.ro www.ispe.ro

SERBIA

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONSAgency for Environmental Protection27a Ruze Jovanovica, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 2861 065 Fax: +381 11 2861 077 Email: office@sepa.gov.rs www.sepa.gov.rs

Commission for Protection of Competition7 Kneginje Zorke Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 381 1911 Fax: +381 11 381 1936 Email: office.kzk@kzk.gov.rs www.kzk.org.rs

Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia5 / V Terazije Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3033 829, Fax: +381 11 3225 780 Email: aers@aers.rs www.aers.rs

European Integration Office34 Nemanjina Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3061-100, 3061-102, 3061-103 Fax: +381 11 3061-110 Email: office@seio.gov.rs www.seio.gov.rs

Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection22-26 Nemanjina Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 260-79-60, +381 11 3612-197 Fax: +381 11 260-79-61 Email: office@minpolj.gov.rs www.mpt.gov.rs

Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure22-26 Nemanjina Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3614-652 Fax: +381 11 3616- 521 Email: pr@ms.gov.rs www.ms.gov.rs

Ministry of EconomyKneza Milosa 20, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3642-600 Fax: +381 11 3642-705 Email: press@privreda.gov.rs www.privreda.gov.rs

Ministry of Mining and Energy22-26 Nemanjina Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3604-403 Fax: +381 11 3616-603 Email: kabinet@mre.gov.rs www.merz.gov.rs

Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government10 Vlajkoviceva Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 333-4105 Fax: +381 11 333-4181 Email: kabinet@mrrls.gov.rs www.mrrls.gov.rs

02. NON GOVERNMENTALDSW - Deutsch-Serbische Wirtschaftsvereinigung / German-Serbian Business Association19-21 Toplicin venac, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 2028 010 Fax: +381 11 3034 780 Email: dsw@ahk.rs http://serbien.ahk.rs

Foreign Investors Council 47 / IV Jevremova Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3281 958 Email: office@fic.org.rs www.fic.org.rs

National Alliance for Local Economic Development – NALED30 / VII Makedonska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 337 3063 Fax: +381 11 337 3061 Email: naled@naled-serbia.org www.naled-serbia.org

Serbian Chamber of Commerce13-15, Resavska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3300 900 Fax: +381 11 3230 949 Email: info@pks.rs www.pks.rs

Serbian Environment Energy Centre (SEEC)48, Vojvode Stepe Street, Obrenovac Tel: +381 69 10 19 488 Email: office@seec.rs

Serbian Wind Energy Association (SEWEA)6, Dure Jaksica Street, Belgrade www.sewea.rs

03. ENERGY COMPANIESCentar7, Slobode Street, Kragujevac Tel: + 381 34 37 00 83, Fax: + 381 34 37 01 56 Email: direktor@edcentar.com www.edcentar.com

Drinsko-Limske Hidroelektrane1, Trg Dusana Jerkovica Street, Bajina Basta Tel: + 381 31 8636 59, Fax: + 381 31 8643 54 Email: mijodrag.citakovic@dlhe.rs www.dlhe.rs

Elektromreza Srbije11, Kneza Milosa Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3330 700, Fax: + 381 11 32 39 908 Email: kabinet@ems.rs www.ems.rs

Elektrovojvodina100, Oslobodenja Boulevard, Novi Sad Tel: + 381 21 527 030, Fax: + 381 21 422 847 Email: bogdan.laban@ev.rs www.elektrovojvodina.rs

Elektrodistribucija Beograd1-3, Masarikova Street, Belgrade Tel: + 381 11 3616 706, Fax: + 381 11 3616 641 Email: zoran.rajovic@edb.rs www.edb.rs

Elektrosrbija5, Dimitrija Tucovica Street, Kraljevo Tel: + 381 36 3 21 686, Fax: + 381 36 3 21 958 Email: Srdjan.Djurovic@Elektrosrbija.rs www.elektrosrbija.rs

EPS Obnovljivi Izvori2, Carice Milice Street, Belgrade Tel: + 381 11 2024 828, Fax: + 381 11 2629 489 Email: aleksandar.vlajcic@eps.rs www.eps.rs

EPS Snabdevanje2, Carice Milice Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 6556 747 Fax: + 381 11 655 6757 Email: kabinet@eps-snabdevanje.rs www.eps-snabdevanje.rs

Hidroelektrane Derdap1, Trg kralja Petra Street, Kladovo Tel: + 381 19 801 651, Fax: + 381 19 801 659 Email: goran.knezevic@djerdap.rs www.djerdap.rs

HIP Petrohemija82, Spoljnostarcevacka Street, Pancevo Tel: +381 13 307 000, Fax: +381 13 310 207 Email: info@hip-petrohemija.rs www.hip-petrohemija.rs

JP Srbijagas12, Narodnog fronta Street, Novi Sad Tel: +381 21 481 2703, Fax: +381 21 481 1305 Email: kabinet@srbijagas.com www.srbijagas.com

80

Jugoistok46a, Zorana Dindica Boulevard, Nis Tel: + 381 18 51 85 00 Fax: + 381 18 53 33 15 Email: kabinet@jugoistok.com www.jugoistok.com

NIS a.d. Novi Sad (Petroleum Industry of Serbia)12, Narodnog fronta Street, Novi Sad Email: office@nis.eu www.nis.eu

Panonske Te-To100, Oslobodenja Boulevard, Novi Sad Tel: + 381 21 527 785 Fax: + 381 21 661 49 44 Email: zoran.ivancevic@panonske.rs www.panonske.rs

Rudarski Basen Kolubara1, Svetog Save Street, Lazarevac Tel: + 381 11 8123 130 Fax: + 381 11 8123 210 Email: milorad.grcic@rbkolubara.co.rs www.rbkolubara.co.rs

South Stream12, Narodnog Fronta Street, Novi Sad Tel: +381 21 210 1323 www.south-stream.info/

Termoelektrane Nikola TeslaBogoljuba Urosevica Crnog, Obrenovac Tel: + 381 11 2054 501 Fax: + 381 11 8755 500 Email: cedomir.ponocko@tent.rs www.tent.rs

Termoelektrane I Kopovi Kostolac5-7, Nikole Tesle Street, Kostolac Tel: + 381 12 5388 01, Fax: + 381 12 5387 11 Email: kabinet@te-ko.rs www.te-ko.rs

04. ALTERNATIVE ENERGYContinental Wind Serbia23, Resavska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 785 0020 Email: serbia@continentalwind.com www.continentalwind.com

Electrawinds-S6, Vladimira Popovica Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 660 0955 www.electrawinds.be

Energo Green115E, Mihajla Pupino Boulevard, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 353 9522 Email: ivan.stanisavljevic@energogreen.com www.energogreen.com

NIS Energowind115v, Mihajla Pupina Boulevard, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 301 5000 Email: office@nis-energowind.com www.nis-energowind.com

Solaris Energy42, Kralja Aleksandra Street, Kladovo Tel: +381 (11) 24 64 580 Email: info@solarisenergy.co.rs

Vestas Central Europe 6, Mihaila Pupina Boulevard, Belgrade Tel: +49 4841 971 722 www.vestas.com

WindVision Operations18-20 / VII Obilicev venac Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 328 3527 Fax: +381 11 630 1527 www.windvision.com

05. LAW FIRMSIKRP i partneri d.o.o. Beograd30, Tadeusa Koscuskog, 11000 Belgrade Tel.: +381 11 2635184, Fax: +381 11 2638349 E-mail: belgrade@rokas.com www.rokas.com/en/

Karanovic & Nikolic23, Resavska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3094 200, Fax: +381 11 3094 223 Email: KNSerbia@karanovic-nikolic.com www.karanovic-nikolic.com

Moravcevic Vojnovic i Partneri in cooperation with Schoenherr27, Francuska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 32 02 600 Fax: +381 11 32 02 610 www.schoenherr.rs

Petrikic & Partneri in cooperation with CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz3, Cincar Janka Street, Belgrade Tel.: +381 11 3208900, Fax: +381 11 3208930 Email: belgrade@cms-rrh.com www.cms-rrh.com/Belgrade-Serbia

TURKEY

01. ELECTRICITYPPC Elektrik Tedarik ve Ticaret Anonim SirketiMaslak Mah., Bilim Sk., No:5 Sun Plaza, Kat:13, 34398, Maslak, Istanbul Tel.: +90 212 367 4963, Fax: +90 212 366 5802 Email: ppc.elektrik@ppc.com.tr

BIG OILSHOULDSUPPORT

www.energyworldmag.com

SMALLBUSINESS.

WE AGREE