In the wake of the 2022 energy crisis, when it was announced that European sanctions would prohibit Serbia from importing Russian oil via the Adriatic Pipeline (JANAF), the Serbian government proposed building an oil pipeline to Hungary. This would indirectly connect Serbia to Russia’s Druzhba pipeline, ensuring a supply of Russian oil. Initially seen as a political move, the project gained momentum with the adoption of a regulation establishing the spatial plan for the pipeline from the Hungarian border to Novi Sad, confirming the government’s commitment to the project.
A bilateral agreement for the construction of the pipeline between Hungary and Serbia was signed in June 2023 by Serbian Energy Minister Dubravka Đedović Handanović and Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó in Palić. The pipeline is expected to run from Novi Sad to Alj, Hungary, at a cost of €157 million for the Serbian section, with a capacity to transport 5.5 million tons of oil annually. The primary reason for the pipeline, according to officials, is to diversify Serbia’s oil supply, as it currently depends on imports through Croatia’s JANAF.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić stated the pipeline could be completed in two years, with a target date of 2028. After the announcement of U.S. sanctions on Serbia’s oil industry due to Russian ownership, Szijjártó indicated that construction would be expedited. Energy experts have pointed out that the pipeline would indirectly connect Serbia to Russia’s Druzhba system.
Druzhba, the longest oil pipeline in the world, spans 4,000 kilometers, supplying oil from Russia to Europe. It consists of two branches: the northern one serves Poland and Germany, while the southern branch, through Ukraine, supplies oil to Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary. In addition to Russian oil, Kazakh oil can also be transported through Druzhba.
However, experts are divided on the economic viability and long-term sustainability of the pipeline. Some argue that relying on Druzhba is unsustainable due to the aging infrastructure and the geopolitical risks, especially as the pipeline passes through conflict-ridden Ukraine. Others believe the pipeline remains essential for Central Europe, including Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia, as it offers a cheaper alternative to oil transport by tanker and would also benefit Serbia by providing a secondary oil supply route.
Miloš Zdravković, an energy expert, emphasized that Serbia’s reliance on JANAF allows for the purchase of various types of oil, including Russian, Kazakh, Iraqi, and American, whereas the Hungarian pipeline would limit Serbia’s options. He also mentioned that 74% of JANAF’s revenue comes from contracts with Serbia’s state-owned NIS oil company, making it unlikely that Croatia would cut off oil supplies.
While Zdravković acknowledged the need for an alternative oil supply, he suggested that a pipeline through Romania to the port of Constanța would be a more economically viable and sustainable option. This route would allow Serbia to diversify its oil sources, including Russian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern oil.
Political analyst Aleksandar Đokić noted that connecting Serbia to Druzhba through Hungary is theoretically feasible due to Hungary’s exemption from EU sanctions on Russian oil. However, he also pointed out that the geopolitical situation and ongoing conflict in Ukraine could make the project politically unachievable in the short term.
Energy expert Bogdan Petrović argued that the Hungarian pipeline would not solely connect Serbia to Druzhba but also integrate Serbia into Hungary’s broader oil infrastructure, allowing for additional sources of oil beyond Russia.
Meanwhile, the long-discussed Pan-European pipeline, which would connect the Black Sea port of Constanța to the Adriatic through Serbia, has been sidelined due to Europe’s focus on decarbonization and the economic infeasibility of such long-term projects in the context of shifting energy priorities.
Petrović highlighted that Europe’s decarbonization goals conflict with long-term infrastructure projects like oil pipelines, which take decades to develop and are not aligned with the current push to reduce carbon emissions. This shift in focus has led to a decline in private investment in such projects, complicating energy policy decisions.
