September - October 2015Price: 10 Euros

ener

gyw

orld

No

9 -

Sep

tem

ber -

Oct

ober

201

5

www.energyworldmag.com

The Magazine for Information & Analysis on Energy Policies

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN ELECTRICITY DEMAND

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A NET CONTRIBUTOR TO LOW CARBON ECONOMY

FRANCE AND GERMANY, THE TWO EDGES

IN NUCLEAR EUROPE

THE TURKISH AND THE GREEK STREAM ARE

STILL UP IN THE AIR…

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 PispirigosDesign 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 9September - October 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: info@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

NEW

S IN

BRI

EF

NUCL

EAR

ENER

GY IS

A N

ET C

ONTR

IBUT

OR T

O LO

W C

ARBO

N EC

ONOM

Y

NU

CLEA

R EN

ERG

Y IS

A P

RIO

RITY

FO

R RO

MAN

IA

DIM

PRO

SPEC

TS F

OR

NU

CLEA

R EN

ERG

Y IN

BU

LGAR

IA

NU

CLEA

R PO

WER

IS O

UT

OF

QU

ESTI

ON

FO

R SE

RBIA

– F

OR

NO

W...

TURK

EY’S

NU

CLEA

R EN

ERG

Y AM

BITI

ON

S AN

D TH

EIR

IMPL

ICAT

ION

S

FRAN

CE A

ND

GER

MAN

Y, T

HE

TWO

EDG

ES IN

NU

CLEA

R EU

ROPE

GRE

ENPE

ACE:

NU

CLEA

R EN

ERG

Y? N

O, T

HAN

K YO

U!

THE

TURK

ISH

AN

D TH

E G

REEK

STR

EAM

ARE

STI

LL U

P IN

TH

E AI

R…

ATH

ENS

WAN

TS P

UBL

IC P

PC A

ND

IPTO

, HO

WEV

ER...

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

3

ROM

ANIA

CU

TS T

AXES

, BEN

EFIT

ING

TH

E EN

ERG

Y SE

CTO

R

“CRO

SS-C

HEC

K” F

OR

THE

OIL

PRI

CE IN

RO

MAN

IA

ELEC

TRIC

ITY

MAR

KET

IN B

ULG

ARIA

TO

WAR

DS

LIBE

RALI

ZATI

ON

LUKO

IL’S

NEW

PLA

NS

FOR

THE

BLAC

K SE

A

CHIN

A EY

ES R

OM

ANIA

N R

EFIN

ERY

CNG

: TH

E “P

ROFE

SSIO

NAL

” TR

ANSP

ORT

ATIO

N F

UEL

CON

TRO

VERS

Y O

VER

SHEL

L AR

CTIC

DRI

LLIN

G

SMAL

LER

IS B

ETTE

R FO

R PH

OVO

LTAI

C IN

DU

STRY

IN R

OM

ANIA

CLEA

N E

NER

GY

BEAC

ON

S AR

OU

ND

THE

WO

RLD

FACI

NG

GLO

BAL

WAR

MIN

G W

ITH

FIV

E G

REEN

TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S

ENER

GY

DIR

ECTO

RY

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

4

01NUCLEAR ENERGY: NEIN OR OUI?

EditorialBy the publisher

The first commercial nuclear power stations started operating in the 1950s. Today, according to the facts of the World Nuclear Association, there are over 435 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with a total capacity of over 375,000 MWe. About 70 more reactors are under construction. These reactors provide over 11% of the world’s electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, 56 countries operate a total of about 240 research reactors and 180 more nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

However, despite the long history of nuclear power in our world, its use remains highly controversial and there is no consensus about its future.

Two facts seem to be crucial and lead to this picture: Firstly, humanity remembers that the first ever use of nuclear power was witnessed 70 years ago, in Hiroshima and Nagashaki, with the two atomic bombs devastating the cities and killing over 200.000 people. Secondly, the serious nuclear accidents of the past – mainly in Three Miles Island (U.S. 1979), in Chernobyl (USSR, 1986) and, of course, in Fukushima (Japan, 2011).

Even within the European Union, there are countries that have already decided to shut down their nuclear reactors (like Germany and Belgium), accelerating the use of other forms of energy, and others that remain... faithful to them (like France and the UK), as they estimate that the benefits are clearly larger

than the disadvantages and risks. The same contradictions can be seen in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. In this region, only Turkey seems to have clearly decided to move towards the construction of new reactors, whereas other traditional users of nuclear energy, such as Romania and Bulgaria, remain reluctant and postpone their next moves in this field.

The latest issue of EnergyWorld magazine attempts to shed light on the situation in different countries as well as on the pros and cons regarding the use of nuclear energy, being objective as always. And declaring that nuclear power is something entirely different from nuclear weapons...

6

News in brief

02Barack Obama, the “climate president”

Clean Beijing for the 70th anniversary...

“America takes the lead in climate change. Obama’s Clean Power Plan lays the foundations for global agreement”, wrote the Financial Times in their editorial article, in the printed edition of August 5th, hailing the plans against global warming announced by the US president. One day earlier, the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung named him “the climate president”. Even Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, after visiting Obama at the White House, underlined that the rule shows the US can actually change the world by being a leader to other countries regarding climate change.Up until now, the stance of US administrations was everything but constructive. Washington played down the significance of planet warming, refused to accept compulsory measures and was the “bad guy” at almost every climate conference – together with China, India, Russia and other developing nations.But now, analysts and scientists say that there are reasons to be optimistic – even cautiously optimistic. “We only get one home. We only get one planet. There’s no plan B”, Obama told his audience on Monday, August 3rd. Pledging, at the same time, that the United States will slash their greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and boost the renewable energy, which would account for 28 percent of the country’s energy mix by 2030 from just under 10 percent currently.Good news. But keep two things in mind: The first is that we must wait until the Climate Conference of Paris, in December, in order to see the final proposals from the US, the Europeans and other global players. As for the second one, don’t forget that time is running out for Obama and he can make promises without a significant cost...

The Chinese government is planning to hold a glorious and impressive military parade on September 3rd, around Tienanmen Square, for the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, marked by Japan’s formal surrender, on September 2, 1945. But the authorities already know that their heavily polluted capital might undermine the glory and the demonstration of power – especially if the weather conditions favor the creation of the usual gray fog which covers the sky and ... separates the city and its people from the sun.The city government, drawing from past major events experience, such as the 2008 Olympic Games and the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum leaders last year, has made its plans in order to avoid the worst case scenario. Among others, according to the Xinhua state news agency, authorities will be able to impose temporary controls on industry, coal-burning boilers and construction, forcing them either to stop or curb operations during that period. But, of course, the parade will soon be over. And then, pollution and fog will return to Beijing and its everyday life.

The price of oil remains low…As OPEC nations signal they will continue pumping crude, as Iran prepares to fully reenter the global supply chain and as demand remains lower than expected due to the weak economic performance of Japan, the Eurozone and many Asian countries (including China), the prices of oil (WTI and Brent) remain close to their six years low. And according to Reuters analysts, many oil traders are positioning themselves to profit from a further fall in prices, taking large short-positions in U.S. crude contracts, while going long in put options for oil at lower than current prices.At the same time, the costs of OPEC’s plan to protect members’ share of the oil market by out-producing rivals are mounting. As oil prices slump, the risks of worsening political turmoil are rising in the organization’s most vulnerable nations. This includes Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela, a group dubbed the ‘Fragile Five’ by RBC Capital Markets Ltd. But even outside the OPEC, the situation is very troubling for many countries, with Russia in first place.

77

On Thursday, August 3rd, Egypt opened a major expansion of the Suez Canal, which deepens the main waterway and provides ships with a 35 km channel parallel to it. Many foreign leaders were present for the inauguration of the $8 billion project. They heard the Egyptian leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, speaking proudly about this achievement, which (as he said...) is the symbol of the new, powerful and influential Egypt and (as he hopes...) will secure him a prominent place in history, next to Gamal Abdel Nasser, who nationalized the original Suez Canal in 1956.Anyway, there is little doubt that the new project is of great importance not only for the economy of Egypt, but also for the global trade and the shipping industry, as traffic through the existing Canal already constitutes 8 percent of global shipping traffic. According to the plans, the new parallel waterway will cut down southbound crossing time from 18 to 11 hours. As a result, the Egyptian government expects the daily average number of vessels passing to nearly double in the following years, reaching the number of 97 by 2023 from 49 currently.As for the oil sector, according to the facts, until August, the Suez Canal carried about 2.5 percent of the world oil output. The majority of crude oil flows transiting the Canal travel northbound, towards markets in the Mediterranean and North America. So, especially with Iran ready to return to the global oil market after the end of the sanctions, the extended Canal could play a much more vital role in global oil transfers.

Suez, a new and precious Canal for global oil

Japan reopens the first reactor after Fukushima

On Tuesday, August 20th, Japan switched on one of its nuclear reactors, for the first time in nearly two years. The sector suffered a severe blow after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the worst of its kind since that of Chernobyl, 25 years ago, which ultimately led to the closure of all Japanese reactors.But now, the country seems to be divided upon this issue. The government, and much of the Japanese industry, want reactors to be restarted in order to cut fuel imports and their costs, especially as the economy contracted during the second quarter of the year, raging fears that a new and even deeper recession looms. At the same time, according to the latest opinion polls, a majority of the public oppose the reopening of the reactors, after the crisis triggered by the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, forcing at least 160.000 from their homes, with many never to return.Of course, Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe,

seeks to reassure the nervous citizens of his country that tougher standards already apply and guarantee that the sector is now safe. And he points out the fact that out of Japan’s 25 reactors at 15 plants, for which operators have applied for permission to restart, only 5 reactors at 3 plants have been cleared to proceed. Simultaneously, the head of Japan’s atomic watchdog has said that the new safety regime means a repetition of the Fukushima disaster would not occur.Of course, the question that arises is whether the citizens are persuaded by Abe’s, as well as the authorities’ reassurances. This just may be why the first plant that reopened, on the west coast of Kyushu island, is the furthest away (1.000 km) of Japan’s reactors from Tokyo, where protesters regularly gather outside Abe’s official residence to oppose to atomic energy. As a fact, the Sendai plant is closer to Shanghai or Seoul than to Japan’s capital…

8

03NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A NET CONTRIBUTOR TO LOW CARBON ECONOMYMany reactors in Europe are now in the process of extending operations for 10-15 years and even maybe 20, because it is the cheapest way to produce electricity. Some countries decided to phase-out their nuclear plants but 14 EU member states support nuclear energy, and it is obvious for us that there is a role for nuclear energy, even if they do not systematically emphasize it in public.

InterviewJean-Pol Poncelet, Secretary General of FORATOM, speaks to Vladimir Spasic

Nuclear energy is a net contributor to low carbon economy, because electricity production by nuclear power plants comes with very low emissions of carbon dioxide, says Jean-Pol Poncelet, Secretary General of FORATOM, the Brussels-based trade association for the nuclear energy industry in Europe.

How did things change in Europe after Fukushima?

We reacted immediately, two or three days after Fukushima, there was a joint initiative by the European Commission, regulators and the industry to deeply review the safety, to make new look on safety, of all reactors, there are 132 reactors in the EU. All of them underwent safety reassessment by their national authorities, and first, not a single one was closed down due to the review which mean that all of them are confident to be safe and for the first time ever in EU the review of the safety authorities was split by the members, which means that the regulator of a single country was reviewed by regulators of other countries.

I would say we drew only positive

lessons from the accident in Fukushima. Of course, there was a slight decrease in support for nuclear energy in certain countries, but for instance in the UK it was the opposite, but we finally recovered. Therefore, that means from my point of view, that there wasn’t a decisive outcome from this accident on the safety on the nuclear reactors in Europe; on the contrary, we had a positive outcome which is very surprising.

And by positive outcome, what exactly do you mean?

Regulation is improved because we had a systematic review of the reactors and these reviews were conducted by regulators of different countries, which was an improvement and led to modernization, so I dare to say that the outcome was positive.

What was the outcome in other parts of the world?

It is different from one country to another. Before the accident, certain countries wanted to phase-out nuclear energy and they said that they are right and consolidate the opposition, like Germany and Austria, but globally,

9

take look at China, they suspended their program to take time and conduct reviews on the reactors but they finally returned to the initial plan. Certain important countries took the time to reconsider it and draw the right conclusions from the disaster, but I would say they didn’t change their mind. In Japan, they understandably suspended all reactors, but now they have improved their system, created an independent safety operator, deeply reviewed the safety of the reactors. I was there last week, and I can tell you that they are planning to restart some reactors. Globally, the industry learnt the right lesson from the accidents, we improved the safety of the nuclear reactors, and we will operate safer than ever before.

What is future of nuclear energy for electricity production in the EU?

Let me just underline what is happening in Europe. We are operating 132 reactors, they contribute to 50 percent of the EU carbon free electricity and 27 percent of the global EU electricity, and this is a significant contribution to the electricity production in the EU. Many reactors are now in the process of extending their operations, so the utilities which operate them need to make the necessary investments in order to extend the operation of the reactors for 10-15 years even maybe 20, because it is the cheapest way to produce electricity. Of course we know that certain countries, including Germany, decided to phase-out their nuclear plants, but globally 14 EU member states support nuclear

energy, so it is one half of the member states, and it is obvious for us that there is a role for nuclear energy, even if they do not systematically emphasize it publically.

Are you aware of the situation in south-east Europe regarding nuclear energy?

Romania and Bulgaria are represented in our organization, because they operate nuclear reactors. The situation is somewhat more complex and difficult. Some of these countries were operating nuclear reactors before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. When they joined the EU, the EU said that they must close down some reactors, like Bulgaria for example, and I know that this was very difficult for them, as they lost part of their power plants, and this is difficult in economical terms. In the meanwhile,

they tried to extend the operation of the reactors and even build a new one. In Romania, they finally decided to extend the use of their reactors. Therefore, some of these countries are used to nuclear energy and they are definitely in favor of extending its use and even build new ones if they can secure money, because it is very expensive, and they are not as wealthy as Germany. One of their constraints is the standing financial situation; it is an enormous investment to build a reactor, costing billion of Euros. Some other countries don’t have nuclear energy; like Serbia and Albania and we don’t know much about their energy policy. Now, something significant is taking place in that part of the world, and that is the increasing interest in nuclear energy by part of Turkey. They are planning on constructing two power plants.

The future of nuclear energy worldwide is promising

How bright is the future of nuclear energy?

As I already said, in the EU there’s already a 27 percent use of nuclear energy and if we keep this order of magnitude, which could make sense, I would say that a 30 percent electricity output would mean that in the next 20-25 years we have to replace 130 reactors in Europe. Hence, there is a long way to go to acquire the required investments. Now take a look at China, with the development

they are now undergoing, they are already developing nuclear reactors. Ten years from now, they will add 40 reactors, and this will only represent 5 percent of their electricity production. Because it is a low carbon source of energy, because it has a very important base load capacity, it is available 24-7. We believe that the future of nuclear is promising worldwide. There are many newcomers in the nuclear energy field, like China and India and this demonstrates the usefulness of this technology.

Jean-Pol Poncelet

10

What advice would you give to countries which are in need of electricity production? What is your advice to countries which are considering building nuclear power plants?

There are some preconditions before you enter nuclear energy. Firstly, these countries must develop their own energy policy and nuclear isn’t the solution for everything. The energy policy has to include the policy against climate change, the policy vis a vis import, because if you are switching to coal you might have to import it, and that affects trade balance, it’s a global issue. Saying that nuclear is a sole solution is a hasty reply, nuclear is only part of the solution. Secondly, technically, a country without any experience in the nuclear energy field, cannot shift to nuclear over night, because it’s complicated, you need human resources, administrative capacities, regulation, industrial skills and competence, it is s very long way to go, and it is a long term energy policy you have to develop. When you start counting, a country that is considering building a reactor, has designed it, built it, put it in operation and commissioned it, it may take up to a century, and there is no industry with such a long term operation. Approximately 90 or 100 years of constant work are required. It is

not just a day policy. It requires a very long preparation to be able to cope with this. If some of these countries would think that they should turn to nuclear energy, maybe a part of the solution could be that they do it jointly. The EU would support these actions.

A century?It’s a way to illustrate the entire process. You need 10 years to decide and construct a nuclear reactor, the typical period of reactor operation is 40 to 60 years, and then you have to stop it, cool it and start decommissioning, and for that you need an additional 10-20 years.

Is nuclear energy part of the solution when we are dealing with climate change?

We consider climate change as something highly important for the world and for the economies. Globally, we need to agree on climate change objectives and reducing the carbon footprint of energy worldwide. Once you look at this, nuclear is a contributor to this, since electricity production from nuclear power plants takes place leaving very low carbon emissions carbon. I would say, approximately 50 g per kW/h, which is exactly that same level as from wind energy, for solar it is approximately 45, but it is 10 times more

EURATOM treaty of 1958

You said financing is the greatest problem in building a reactor. Are politics or geopolitics also a problem?

If you are referring to an EU member, any EU member must comply with the EURATOM treaty of 1958, and there is article 41, which implies that every investment on nuclear anywhere in Europe must be disclosed to the European Commission and then EC open inquiry with neighboring countries and to get their comments. So, in the beginning, there is no way to avoid this kind of discussion. It is a political issue. A second issue, is the internal public opinion, because investing in such a policy and power plant must have the support of the public opinion not only for one or five years, but for very long period of time, for approximately over 50 years. The last issue is financing. Under EU regulation, there is no way for a country member’s government to support nuclear in its own country. You must comply with many regulations and that is why you need so much time to set forth a reactor.

11

for gas fired power stations, climbing to approximately 400 g per kW/h. If you want to support low carbon electricity production, it is obvious that nuclear energy is part of the solution. Every time that someone would decide on closing a nuclear power plant and replacing it by fossil fuels, it is the exact wrong way to go, because it is increasing carbon emissions. So in a nutshell, we do believe that the contribution of nuclear energy worldwide, is significant to the reduction of global warming.

Do decision makers, in Brussels for example, accept that nuclear is part of the solution?

Let’s start with the important country, which is the US. If you take a look at what Obama has just decided, very recently, to reduce their national carbon emissions, of course they didn’t really emphasize it publically, but if you take a closer look at their strategy, they maintain nuclear energy which brings 20 percent of electricity production, so that’s one example. Secondly, you probably know about the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), well, last year they spent much time studying many scenarios, and we noticed that they finally drew up 1,200 possible scenarios for stopping global warming

by two degrees Fahrenheit and only 8 of them suggest the phasing-out of nuclear energy, and in one of their reports, they stated that nuclear is a contributor to low carbon electricity. So, I believe that progressively, times are changing and I would say it is not a consensus yet, but decision-makers and IPCC itself are recognizing that nuclear is part of the solution.

What is the current situation regarding nuclear energy in the EU? You mentioned Germany, but is their decision about phasing-out nuclear linked to things that are specific for this country?

Yes, it is obvious. You are right to underline this, and I am not in charge of making political comments, but it is obvious that Germany’s decision has

been supported and can be explained partly by their internal issues. The story of nuclear energy in Germany, is a very long one, by the way, with the confusion between military and civil nuclear plants because they were opposing the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War… There are very basic arguments in the German situation. Now, what we must know is that the way in which the EU countries are developing renewables is very expensive. They spend 25 billion Euros per year to support renewables, especially Germany, but they can afford it, they are wealthy, they have a wealthy economy, they have foreign trade surplus, their public finance is good. Consequently, I believe it is easier for them to support renewables, and this is very different when we look at Central and Eastern Europe, where it is totally out of the question to compare the economic and financial situation in Germany with that of Romania or Bulgaria. Germany is very specific. We need time to see how will this develop, but it is very expensive. They are introducing themselves as a “green country” but they are producing one half of their electricity from coal, dirty coal, this is very far from any “green” policy.

Facts about nuclear energy in the EU

There are 132 reactors in the EU

They produce 50 percent of the EU carbon free electricity

27 percent of the global EU electricity comes from nuclear

12

04NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A PRIORITY FOR ROMANIARomania has two operating nuclear reactors, which cover almost 20 percent of its electricity demand, at a very low cost. China General Nuclear Power (CGN) has already agreed with the government to complete two more units and the support for nuclear energy from the Romanian side is really strong.

Nuclear energyEmilia Damian

Electricity consumption in Romania has been steady over the past decade. Nuclear energy now provides almost 20% of the electricity at very low cost, only hydro (one third of supply) is cheaper. In 2006, 40% of electricity came from coal, 19% from gas, 29% from hydro and 9% from nuclear power. In 2014, 34% of electricity came from brown coal, 12% from gas, 33% from hydro and 19% from nuclear power.

In the late 1970’s a five-unit nuclear power plant was planned at Cernavoda, on the Danube River. After carefully considering both the Russian VVER-440 and the Canadian CANDU technology, it was decided to adopt the latter. Cernavoda was based on technology transfer from Canada (AECL), Italy and the USA, with Candu-6 heavy-water reactors.

The construction of the first unit started in 1980, and of units 2-5 in 1982. In 1991, works on the latter four were suspended in order to focus on unit 1, responsibility for which was handed to an AECL-Ansaldo (Canadian-Italian) consortium. Unit 1 was connected to the grid in

mid 1996 and entered into commercial operation in December 1996.

The state nuclear power corporation Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica (SNN), established in 1998, operates in Cernavoda. Its capacity factor has averaged over 86% so far, and operating and maintenance costs are USD 1.25 cents/kWh. The unit also provides district heating to Cernavoda township, and 176 TJ was supplied in 2006.

Nuclear IPOIn 2000, the government decided that the completion of Cernavoda 2 was a high priority and supplied some €60 million towards it. It was seen as the least-costly means of providing extra generating capacity for the country. Further finance was raised in 2002-2003, with a €382.5 million package announced by the government, including €218 million from Canada. In 2004, a €223.5 million Euratom loan was approved by the European Commission for the completion of unit 2, including upgrades.

The 700 MWe (gross) unit was built by

13

an AECL-Ansaldo-SNN management team, and entered into commercial operation in October 2007. The total cost of the project was €777 million. It started up in May 2007 and was grid connected early in August.

In September 2013, the government sold a 10% share of SNN for $85 million in an IPO, in line with commitments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the EU. It also sold 1% to the investment fund Fondul Proprietatea.

In 2002, efforts got under way to resume work on Cernavoda unit 3, and SNN commissioned a feasibility study from Ansaldo, AECL and KHNP (S.Korea) in 2003. In August 2004, the government advertised for companies interested in completing Cernavoda unit 3 – a 700 MWe Candu 6 unit – through a public-private partnership arrangement. This proved impractical, and a feasibility study in March 2006 analyzed further options for both units 3 & 4, including that of SNN completing unit 3 itself.

“Units 3 and 4 of the Cernavoda nuclear-power plant are a priority for the

Romanian Government, and a decision on the future of this project will be made by September”, Prime Minister Victor Ponta said. “This is a priority for the incumbent government; it is included in its program and I intend to carry

through the projects for units 3 and 4 of the Cernavoda plant. This is a political decision I am taking up”, Ponta said.

China is coming...China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) expressed its interest in investing in the project, providing non-nuclear equipment. In November 2013, two nuclear cooperation agreements were signed by Nuclearlectrica (SNN) with CGN, one a letter of intent regarding the construction of units 3 & 4. In May 2014, a further agreement with CGN was signed, and in mid-2014 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China agreed to finance the €6.5 billion project, with CNPEC building the two reactors. CGN would hold a major share in the project, with Nuclearlectrica (SNN) the minor shareholder holding 49%, in a new joint venture to replace or reconstitute EnergoNuclear SA, in which SNN now holds 84.65%.

In July 2014, CGN subsidiary China Nuclear Power Engineering Co (CNPEC) signed a “binding and exclusive” cooperation agreement with Candu Energy Inc. for the construction of two more reactors at Cernavoda. The

“Units 3 and 4 of the Cernavoda nuclear-power plant are a priority for the Romanian Government, and a decision on the future of this project will be made by September 15” – Victor Ponta, the Romanian Prime-Minister

14

agreement complements the November 2013 letter of intent signed by CNPEC’s parent company China General Nuclear (CGN) and Nuclearelectrica for investment in and development of Cernavoda units 3 & 4. CGN itself has no experience of CANDU technology.

Then in September 2014, CGN submitted its offer to construct the two units, and was accepted as a Qualified Investor. In October of the same year, SNN designated CGN as the “selected investor” for the project and the two companies signed a letter of intent to proceed. The units will be updated versions of the Candu 6, but not the full EC6 version, since the concrete structures are already built. Unit 3 is

reported as being 53% complete and unit 4, 30%.

A new plantSNN was planning to complete Cernavoda unit 5 by 2020, but since this has progressed significantly less than the others, the government is considering building further nuclear capacity at other sites. The shell of unit 5 is now being used for other purposes. Early plans foresaw ten Candu and three VVER-1000 units for Romania, at several sites.

A March 2008 statement by the head of SNN, said that up to four more units were suggested at a new site by 2020, and early in 2009 site selection was still under way. In May, it was announced

“It will require restructuring and investment, because mines comply with environmental and safety standards and at least a minimum level of profitability” – Andrei Gerea, the Romanian Minister of Energy … but coal still saves Romania

Coal saves Romania once again: during winter when gas import stops or when it is very hot in the summer and the hydro energy production is low, Romania uses coal to cover its energy needs. The fact is that coal provided for more than 35% of the country’s electricity needs this summer, during the severe drought and lack of wind.

“The current situation requires the need to ensure a balanced energy mix, which is why we insisted on finding solutions to maintain activity in mining areas. Hydro electricity production has dropped significantly in recent years. The flow of the river Danube and others across

the country is decreasing and we have a drop in the wind”, said Andrei Gerea, the Romanian Energy Minister, in August.

According to ANM forecasts, this weather with no wind and low rainfall may be extended until autumn as well.

“In this context, we stick to nuclear power and coal. It becomes obvious that we must strive to maintain mining, to give us the guarantee of a balanced system so that Romania’s energy security is not affected. At times, I think everyone understands the importance of coal not only for our country, but for this part of Europe as well”, Gerea added.

15

that the Tirnaveni municipality in Tirgu Mures district of Transylvania and on the Muresul River in central Romania was favored, with a site in the nearby Sibiu district on the Olt River as a second option. Three sites on the Somes River in Transylvania have also been mentioned, for 2400 MWe of capacity to be built after 2020. Areva has been approached to contribute to the planning, with a view to a second plant being commissioned by 2030.

Not without problems…Romania has two large coal energy producers: Oltenia Energy Complex (CEO) and Hunedoara Energy Complex. But both of them have significant financial problems.

Andrei Gerea visited the CEO in August, in the south-western part of the country. CEO consists of three big coal plants: in Turceni, Rovinari and Craiova, with more than 3.000 MW installed.

“We came together to discuss and establish a strategy for CEO to follow. We understand how important the industry and the sector of electricity production from coal are. We are

in discussions with the European Commission, and are trying to convince people there to accept better conditions for coal. We hope to gain a different approach because, in our view, it is more than clear that the role of coal cannot be questioned regarding energy security”, said the Minister of Energy.

“It will obviously require restructuring and investments, because mines comply with environmental and safety standards and at least a minimum level of profitability. This is what we will try to do at both the Oltenia Energy Complex and Hunedoara. The reduction of black holes that we found in these complexes is a priority, generated not only by poor management, but also by dubious contracts signed at the expense of state companies”, said Andrei Gerea, referring to the economic situation of the coal energy complexes.

Romania has more than 5.500 MW installed in coal, 3.500 in gas, 1.400 MW in nuclear, 6.500 MW of hydro power plants and 5.000 MW in renewables.

“At times I think everyone understands the importance of coal not only for our country but for this part of Europe” – Andrei Gerea, the Romanian Minister of Energy

16

05DIM PROSPECTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY IN BULGARIABulgarians often pride themselves in their nuclear energy, because, on the one hand, they were the first in the region to have developed it. On the other hand, it is regarded as the most sophisticated industrial project, a local analogue of the space programs of the richer countries. Kozloduy NPP is the backbone of the Bulgarian energy system, providing cheap and reliable electricity. But the string of terribly mismanaged nuclear projects during recent years has cast serious doubt on the possibility for new developments in the field.

Nuclear energyNikolay Jekov

There are many nuclear plant projects in several countries that have gone wrong. The Olkiluoto NPP in Finland, the Flamanville NPP in France and the Zwentendorf NPP in Austria, to name a few. Not to mention Chernobyl or Fukushima. But if there is a nuclear basket case, it will definitely include examples from Bulgaria.

During the last 25 years, the country had to close down four of if its older reactors in Kozloduy NPP, after having spent hundreds of millions on modernizations, even though everyone was aware of the fact that due to the EU accession requirements, they had to be decommissioned. Bulgaria set forward a new nuclear power plant – that of Belene – in 1987, only to freeze its construction in 1990, then restarted it again in 2002, froze it anew and then discontinued it in 2012. By various accounts, Bulgaria had spent (the decision on the arbitrage between the Bulgarian NEK and the Belene NPP EPC contractor Atomstroyexport is still pending) more than three billion Euros. On the face of this multibillion waste, and the apparent electricity oversupply in the country,

later in 2012 the Bulgarian government decided to study the feasibility of a new project – the construction of an additional unit in Kozloduy.

The current state of affairsCurrently nuclear power provides for 33% of the annual electricity production. It is down from 47.3% (in 2002), when the Kozloduy NPP commenced the decommissioning of its old four VVER-440/230 units. They were closed down with all the other units of the same type (except those in Russia) due to international concern over their safety.

The main benefit of the Kozloduy NPP is its cheap energy. The average price of its electricity in 2014 was 28.2 Euros per megawatt hour, however, the households buy at an even lower price. This is achieved by virtue of the Kozloduy age – the nuclear power plant was paid off a long time ago, and it now operates with a symbolic profit due to its public ownership.

The Kozloduy NPP is currently undergoing a major life-extension program. As a result, the power

17

plant whose two remaining VVER-1000’s were built in 1988 and 1993 respectively, will be able to be operating until 2051. In addition, the installed power will be increased to 2080 or 2200 MW, depending on the selected upgrade details.

The Belene sagaThe construction of what was supposed to be the second Bulgarian nuclear power plant – the Belene NPP, began amid severe electricity shortages in Bulgaria. The end of the 80’s were known as the “disco years”, because the electricity for the households was going on and off on 2/1 per hour rhythm. However, soon after the political changes in 1989, the economy crumbled and the demand for electricity was met by the newly constructed 6th unit of the Kozloduy NPP. The construction of the Belene NPP was halted, even though 40% of the building construction works for the first unit were completed and 80% of the details for the reactor that was supposed to be installed there, were delivered by SKODA JS a.s.

The resurrection of the Belene NPP, was

triggered by the Bulgarian accession negotiations with the EU. Brussels was firm on its position that the older units of the Kozloduy NPP should be decommissioned before Bulgaria enters into the Union. This was viewed in Bulgaria as a grave injustice. It also fueled fears of electricity shortages – an issue as sensitive for the Bulgarians as inflation is for the Germans. Using these sentiments in 2002, the government restarted the project. By that time, few believed that this is more than a political gesture to tone down the public complaints and to enable the continuation of the EU accession negotiations.

In 2004 however, the nuclear energy lobby in Bulgaria succeeded in pushing the project forward. It was initially thought that the completion of the already supplied Czech-build reactor would only cost USD 2.5 billion, a moderate price of 1000 MW. However, - in the course of the tender preparations the idea was altered and instead of completing the existing equipment, the government approved the supply of an entirely new nuclear island (reactors

and turbines). The proponents argued that such an important project could not be built with 15-year old equipment. A particular aspiration was included – the companies wishing to participate in the construction, need to suggest a solution for the Czech reactor already supplied in the early 90’s. This automatically reduced the tender applicants down to two companies – Skoda JS a.s. and Rosatom (to original proprietor of the technology). The important thing is that both companies were actually Russian (Skoda JS. is part of OMZ).

Rosatom won the tender for the construction of two new VVER-1000 in 2006, with a slightly better price and offer to buy back the existing equipment (the old Czech reactor that was rejected for safety reasons in Bulgaria is already working in Russia for several years). A hastily written preliminary contract was signed in the same year. In 2008, without having agreed on the final price of the project, without a final accepted detailed design and without a foreign partner (which was the original idea), Bulgaria begun to order some of the equipment. The fervent acquisition push

18

was explained with the attempt to save some money in anticipation of which prices were going up. But as it turned out in the end, those early contracts held the Bulgarian authorities as hostages.

Up until the end of 2008, the process seemed to go well and the year culminated with the selection of German utility giant RWE as a shareholder with a 49% stake in the project. RWE was supposed to share the financial risk and to provide the Belene NPP with a market in Central Europe. But the rosy period didn’t last long.

The problems began in mid 2009. RWE became nervous with NEK dealings with Rosatom behind their back. For example the EPC contract details were written without RWE’s consent - those details are paramount for the operational safety and the end price of the nuclear plant. However, most probably the most important reason was the financial crisis in 2009. The crisis began swiping various expensive projects. In the case of the energy field, the credit become tight and the wholesale price for the electricity went in uncontrollable panicky tailspin (for example by the same time Temenelin NPP in Czech Republic was put on hold as well), making new projects hard to come by.

By the end of 2009, RWE pulled out of the project and the Bulgarian authorities were not sure how they should proceed. The Bulgarian NEK could not have financed the project alone and it was more than clear that the Belene NPP

did not have a market – the Bulgarian market was already saturated with electricity, while the hopes to export to Italy or Turkey were not met with great enthusiasm from those countries (there was even an extravagant idea to supply Syria). However, even though the ruling party by that time – GERB, declared in its pre-election campaign that it would stop the project immediately, there were a lot of players that had interest in the Belene NPP. The local construction and consultancy companies had too large a stake in the continuation of the project. Only the architect-engineer – a consortium between WorleyParsons and Risk Engineering – would have received 400 mln. Euros.

In addition to the above, Bulgaria invested nearly 500 mln. Euros and committed itself to buy equipment worth 800 milion Euros from Rosatom. The hasty cancelation of the project would have meant throwing them down the drain, a proposition that can’t be taken easily.

The exit option the government found, was to ask its Russian partner to find an external investor to share the risks and to find an EU investor. The hope was that the Russian company would not be able to carry this out. Rosatom readily agreed to take 49% of the shares of the Belene NPP, and suggested the Finish Fortum and the French Altran as additional shareholders. Yet the proposal was rejected by the Bulgarian government, because these were obviously not strategic investors. Then

According to the European Commission Bulgaria would not consider implementing a new nuclear plant project before 2035

19

the government decided on a second attempt. It hired HSBC to find new- strategic investors. But before the bank was able to analyze the entire project (its initial conclusion was that the Belene NPP had investment potential), on 28th of March the Bulgarian parliament voted on halting the construction of the Belene NPP. Rosatom replied with a one billion claim that is now being decided upon before the Paris arbitrage court.

Westinghouse is in the houseThe decision to cancel the Belene NPP was supplemented with a mandate to study the possibility of building a 7th unit in the existing Kozloduy NPP. The logic behind that thought was that it could be cheaper – most of the infrastructure is present and the already ordered equipment for one reactor from Rosatom could be transferred there. Additionally the government stated that Bulgaria doesn’t need two 1000 MW reactors, one is enough.

However, as with the Belene NPP in 2002, this was mere political maneuvering. On the one hand, it would

have quashed the pro-nuclear public opinion (60.6% of the Bulgarians voted in favour of the development of nuclear energy in a referendum in January 2013) and on the other hand, it would have opened the door to negotiations with Rosatom regarding the use of equipment already ordered.

But early in the process, the Kozloduy NPP selected the American Westinghouse company to conduct a feasibility studyon the possible use of the Russian equipment combined with Western turbines and electronics. Westinghouse of course, proved that the construction of ca ombined model was more expensive than the construction of a unit with a single technology provider.

By the end of 2013, the then socialist government characterized the project as a priority, and begun alluding that Bulgaria will order not one, but two 1000 MW units from Westinghouse. An obvious geo-political reasoning explained the unorthodox move for a socialist government – Russia will construct the South Stream in Bulgaria, and the US – a nuclear power plant. By mid 2014, a new company was established – the Kozloduy NPP – New Projects, with Westinghouse holding a 49% stake. The agreement stipulated that the US company would provide the equipment as a credit, but will not remain as a long-term investor. It had the right to sell its shares one year before that new unit becomes operational and the Kozloduy NPP was obliged to buy them back.

The new nuclear project faced the same problems as the Belene NPP. There is no investor willing to share the risk with the Bulgarian state owned companies, making the new multibillion euro endeavor extremely risky. The Bulgarian electricity market is oversupplied with electricity and every time there is a problem with the exports, the Electricity System Operator is forced to even restrict the operation of the nuclear power plant in Kozloduy. It occured several times in 2013. On top of that, the minimum electricity consumption in Bulgaria is approximately 2400 Megawatt. In the presence of 3000 MW of nuclear power (if the Westinghouse project is built) and 3000 MW of renewable energy plants, one reactor unit would have to be switched off – a highly uneconomical move.

The future of the new nuclear power projects in Bulgaria is rather dim. It is not only that the country has no need for money to build them. After two failed projects, there are hardly any investors or technology providers who will consider Bulgaria as a viable place for a new nuclear power plant. The only nuclear development that will be completed is the currently ongoing life-extension program of the Kozloduy NPP. And probably in 2035 (according to the EU Commission study Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050, Reference Scenario 2013), Bulgaria might think of new nuclear plant project.

Currently nuclear power provides for 33% of the annual electricity production. It is down from 47.3% (in 2002)

20

06NUCLEAR POWER IS OUT OF QUESTION FOR SERBIA – FOR NOW...The construction of nuclear power plants is Serbia has been legally banned for more than two decades. In public and officially there are no serious debates about the possible revision of this segment of the energy policy, even though in the country’s neighbourhood things might change on this level...

Nuclear energyStevan Veljovic

A quick look at Serbia’s strategic goals in the energy sector and “hot topics” in the media, says it all about the interest for nuclear energy in Serbia. In brief, the construction of nuclear power plants is not a topic.

This should not come as a surprise, keeping in mind that laws banning the construction of nuclear power plants are, in various forms, in force since 1989. The Moratorium resulted not only in the prohibition of technical studies, investment programs and decisions, but also deprived Serbia of experts in the field of nuclear energy, as the department for nuclear energy at the School of Electrical Engineering had been repealed.

The moratorium, however, doesn’t apply to nuclear projects in other countries. Several years ago, the then Serbian Government declared its interest to participate in the Belene project, a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria with a projected capacity of 1,060 megawatts, which was never implemented. The abandonment of the project set the topic of nuclear energy completely out of focus, with the odd appearances of advocates or opponents

of nuclear energy.

Pros and consThe legal constraints on the construction of nuclear facilities limited the interest for confrontation of arguments from those in favour and against nuclear energy. According to Mr. Slobodan Ruzic, manager of Energy Saving Group, a consultancy, the main advantages of nuclear energy are its price and environmental impact. “It is the cheapest energy that can be produced with technologies that are known and currently available. The construction of this kind of facility could generate growth in other industries as well, while cheap electricity would give the market a competitive advantage and improve the economic and social conditions for the citizens”, Ruzic said.

Another strong point, which is less talked about, is the impact on CO2 emission and the greenhouse effect. The pressure on reduction of CO2 emission has been put-off at least temporarily by decision of the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community to postpone the deadline for closing down older thermal power

21

plants. The deadline for adjusting with the values of emissions defined in the Large Combustion Plants Directive was initially set for 2017, but the member states were given another six years to comply with the EU regulations. The issue of reducing CO2 emissions is likely to emerge in the future as one of the factors that could influence the debate on the use of nuclear energy.

As Ruzic noted, looking at the graph of the CO2 emissions increase in the 20th century, it is clear that the only period when there was a significant slowdown in C02 emission coincides with the period of intensive construction and opening and commissioning of nuclear power plants over the world.

In the minds of the public, the nuclear power plants are more associated with risks than with benefits. Older citizens still remember the accident in Chernobyl in 1986, which hugely influenced energy policies in former Yugoslavia, and Serbia also. In reaction to the accident, the law banning the construction of power plants was passed in 1989, and the Department of Technical Physics and

Nuclear Engineering at the School of Electrical Engineering was closed down. The absence of courses on nuclear technology in Serbian faculties deprived the country of young professionals in the field, leaving only a small number of experts familiar with these technologies. After the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, in 2011, the opening of a debate on nuclear energy was even less likely, especially as other European countries begun to question their energy policies.

The experts’ remark that the probability of malfunction in nuclear power plants is lower than in regular power plants is not likely to change the prevailing opinion. However low, the risk still exists, and the consequences of the accidents are frightening as they can cover large areas, with a large number of people and can last for a very long time. “It is understandable that people are worried and afraid of possible consequences. However, the relation between a small probability of malfunction and the terrible consequences of failure is not unknown in other human activities. In air traffic, the consequences of failure are daunting,

and the human race did not give up air travel, because the benefits it brings every day – a large number indeed – are more important”, he added.

Ruzic argued that the problem should be solved by improving technology and security systems, introducing rigorous security procedures, which exclude the possibility of human error or terrorist attack, rather than banning the construction. “By prohibiting the construction, we are giving up all the benefits that we can achieve and we are risking energy dependence which does not bring anything good, especially for small countries such as Serbia”, he concluded.

Look into the futureCurrent energy strategies rely on new projects based on coal, renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency. A number of experts believe that Serbia has enough resources in lignite, hydro power plants and renewable energy, to secure stable electricity supply in the coming years, along with energy efficiency measures that will partially reduce the need for electricity.

22

Jelica Putnikovic, energy analyst and editor of the online magazine Balkanmagazin.net, reminds us that Serbia managed to satisfy the needs of both industry and households from its own resources despite the fact that no new power plant had been built during the last three decades. “With the existing capacities, the planned new thermal and hydro power plants and the development of renewable energy sources, Serbia doesn’t need to invest in the construction of nuclear power plants”, Putnikovic said.

She described nuclear energy as an “expensive toy”, arguing that Serbia should invest in energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, especially hydro potential. “For example, the pumped-storage Bistrica hydro power plant would be able to produce electricity at peak demand, necessary for balancing the power system, which achieves the highest price on the market. Throughout the region of Southeast Europe, there is a deficit of this energy, and the implementation of the project is quite favorable. The calculations show that 700 megawatts of installed capacity would cost just over 600 million Euros”, Putnikovic explaines.

Vojislav Vuletic, an energy expert, also argues that Serbia has enough resources in lignite and renewable energy sources, and space to increase energy efficiency. “Serbia should not lift the ban on the construction of nuclear power plants, we don’t need nuclear energy in addition to the currently existing resources. And I don’t say this

as a lobbyist against nuclear power, but based on facts about our reserves to generate electricity”, he added.

Ruzic, on the other hand, suggests that there are limitations to these resources, if the time horizon is moved further on into the future.

“It is possible to secure a stable energy system in Serbia for the next 15 to 20 years, without nuclear energy. Our coal reserves are sufficient to ensure the production of electricity at the current level over the next 30 years. Taking into account the natural increase in electricity consumption, as well as the need to significantly increase the

industrial production, we can count on coal as the basic resource for electricity generation in Serbia for the next 20 years”, Ruzic explained.

He noted that this prediction is based on the available resources, in the Kostolac and Kolubara basin, keeping in mind that coal resources in the Kosovo basin are not available. “If they were, it would have changed the conclusions entirely, because they are sufficient to meet the needs of Serbia for at least the next 200 years”, Ruzic explained.

“Provided that we do the best we can to make use of the remaining potentials of renewable energy and increase energy efficiency, and assuming that coal from Kosovo will not be available, in no later than 20 years it will be necessary to use nuclear energy“, he said.

For some of the proponents of nuclear energy, the disastrous floods that occured in May 2014 flooding the Kolubara coal mine and causing damage to key thermal power plants, give an additional reason for the Government to reconsider its policy regarding the support of nuclear energy program, regardless of the final decision on the actual construction of the nuclear power plant in Serbia.

Since there is currently hardly any debate on this issue, the time to test, confront and explain the various arguments for and against nuclear energy in Serbia, is yet to come.

“Serbia should not lift the ban on the construction of nuclear power plants, we don’t need nuclear energy in addition to the currently existing resources” – Vojislav Vuletic, an energy expert

www.energyworld.gr

The Greek & S.E. Europe Energy Magazine

EnergyWorldGR

@energyworldgr

➤

24

07TURKEY’S NUCLEAR ENERGY AMBITIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONSIn terms of numbers, Turkey imports nearly three quarters of its energy, and the share of imported natural gas and coal in electricity production amount to more than half of the total electricity production in the country. As a result, nuclear energy thus emerges as a cheap and clean alternative – it could also allow Turkey to diversify its energy suppliers.

Nuclear energyDoruk Ergun*

With an average annual economic growth rate of over 4 percent, Turkish demand for electricity has increased at a remarkable rate of 8 percent over the last decade. Official projections, the latest of which was released in June 2013, put the annual growth of energy demand at approximately 6.5 percent for the next decade in a low growth scenario, which means that the country’s demand for electricity is expected to double in the next ten years. Still, only part of this electricity generation can be produced through domestic means and energy imports continue to be one of the largest sources of the country’s account deficit.

On the other hand, Turkey will continue to lack cheap domestic alternatives to offset its dependence on foreign energy imports, as well as the ever increasing electricity demand. In terms of fossil fuels, the country has only low-quality coal resources, and imports most of its natural gas and oil. Additionally, there are environmental concerns, as the country’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased rapidly over the years. The country has invested more in hydropower over the years (which

are sources of other environmental concerns in themselves), yet these investments were outweighed by the increased investments in thermal power production. Laslty, although Turkey has significant potential for wind and solar power generation and plans to increase their share over the years, there are considerable limitations to the country’s grid quality and capacity to accommodate solar and wind based electricity generation.

A long sought goalFor Turkish policymakers, nuclear energy thus emerges as a cheap and clean alternative – it could also allow Turkey to diversify its energy suppliers. Furthermore, Ankara has wanted to have access to nuclear technology and know-how for decades, which can be traced back to Turkey’s membership to the Atoms for Peace program in 1955. In addition to contributing to the country’s overall technological development and its potential economic applications, access to nuclear technology, or becoming a “nuclear power” has been seen as a source of prestige by certain policymakers. The

25

country had begun feasibility studies for its first nuclear power plant back in early 1960’s, but its numerous attempts to reach deals with foreign suppliers were stillborn due to the political and economic instabilities in Turkey, as well as for technical and financial reasons.

Long-term PPA guaranteed Rosatom investmentOut of these financial reasons, the most outstanding has been Ankara’s long-standing persistence on assuming none of the financial risks involved and leaving the responsibility of raising the funds for the nuclear power plant (NPP) to the supplier. Although Turkey has had numerous tenders since putting this model forward, most suppliers, including multiple Western companies it negotiated with, were either not willing or unable to generate the funds necessary for the consruction of the NPP in their own capacity or were reluctant to enter into a contract by assuming all of the financial risks, as the development and construction costs of NPPs amount to billions of dollars.

It was Russia’s and hence state-owned

ROSATOM’s willingness to accept all financial risks and costs of the project, that allowed Turkey to reach its first NPP deal under the Build-Own-Operate (BOO) model. Under the intergovernmental agreement reached between the two sides in 2010, ROSATOM will build four VVER-1200 units (4800 MW in total) in Akkuyu, and the Turkish Electricity Trade & Contract Corporation (TETAS) in turn has guaranteed the purchase of 70% of

the power generated from the first two units and 30% from the third and fourth unit for 15 years at a fixed price of USD 12.35 cents/kWh. It is expected for the project company to recuperate its costs in a 15 year period, after which it will continue to sell its power on the open market for the facility’s life cycle of 60 years. During this period, ROSATOM will pay 20 percent of its profits to the Turkish government. While ROSATOM has the right to sell 49 percent of its equity in the project, it will continue to have the controlling shares as part of the BOO model, which will be applied in a NPP project for the first time in history.

The construction price goes up, as usualOriginally, the first unit was due to come online in 2019, with the other three going online subsequently each following year. The plant was scheduled to be fully operational by 2023, the centennial of the foundation of the modern Turkish Republic. Yet it has faced considerable delays in the licensing process, and the construction of the first unit will now reportedly begin by the end of 2015 or in 2016. This means the first unit would

Only part of this electricity generation can be produced through domestic means and energy imports continue to be one of the largest sources of the country’s account deficit

26

come online by 2022 at the earliest, and the whole plant would be operational by 2025 if there are no further delays. Still, observers have pointed towards the deteriorating Russian economy and the increasing costs of the plant, which may amount up to USD 25 billion against initial expectations of USD 20 billion, as potential reasons for further delay.

Turkey prefers to diversifyMeanwhile, Ankara has signed another agreement with the Japanese-French consortium between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Areva for the construction of four ATMEA1 reactors (4480 MW in total) in the northern city of Sinop. In the agreement ratified by the Turkish Parliament in March 2015, financing will be composed of 30% equity and 70% lending, and the Electricity Production Corporation (EUAS) from the Turkish side will have a 49% stake in the joint venture. The commission date is scheduled to be 2023, with the last unit entering into service in 2028. Under the agreement, the Turkish side has guaranteed to buy electricity for 20 years at prices ranging from of USD 10.8 cents to USD 10.83 cents kWh (cost of fuel not included). The project is currently in its feasibility stage and is expected to cost approximately USD 16 billion.

Furthermore, Turkey has announced its intentions to build a third NPP with local

means after 2019. The whereabouts of the said NPP is yet to be decided upon, and the Japanese side has been asked to conduct site selection studies for the third plant through the agreement signed for the construction of the Sinop NPP. Additionally, in November 2014, EUAS signed a deal with Westinghouse Electric Company and the Chinese State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation, to engage in exclusive negotiations for the construction of a four-unit NPP in Turkey, yet no site has been specified yet.

Nuclear power will substitute some gas importsWith the introduction of the Akkuyu and Sinop plants, nuclear energy will roughly have a 10 percent share in the country’s projected energy demand for the next decade. Government sources have argued that the country will be able to shave off more than USD 7 billion of its natural gas imports through the introduction of the two NPPs. According to current plans, the government hopes to increase the share of nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix to 15 percent by 2030. As the country needs to find ways of generating approximately 3.5-4 GW of additional energy annually to satisfy its demand according to current projections, nuclear power will not serve as a silver bullet, it could however present Turkey with a cheap and stable option to diversify its energy mix.

Although Turkey has significant potential for wind and solar power generation and plans to increase their share over the years, there are considerable limitations to the country’s grid quality and capacity to accommodate solar and wind based electricity generation

27

Moreover, as evidenced by the country’s aspirations to develop and build its own nuclear power plant, the plants will help Turkey form its technological and human capital in the nuclear field. Critics, on the other hand, point towards alternative ways of offsetting the energy demand, such as making improvements to the electricity grid, and pursuing solar and wind alternatives. Furthermore, critics highlight safety and security concerns, issues regarding waste management, the country’s limited nuclear regulatory capabilities and underline the lack of track records for the two NPPs as Turkey will be the first country to host VVER 1200 and ATMEA1 type reactors.

First country to apply BBO in nuclear power plantsTurkey will present an interesting case as a nuclear newcomer, as it will be the first country to apply the BOO model in a nuclear setting. While financially sound, the BOO model may present numerous challenges regarding the delegation of authority between the operator and Turkish agencies, Turkey’s ability to influence decision making regarding how the facility will be managed,

how the security and emergency response mechanisms of the NPP will be arranged, agreeing upon vetting procedures between Turkey and Russia for facility employees, transportation of fuel and waste to and from the facility, and the arrangements that the two governments and private companies will reach, to name a few. As Russia is trying to present the BOO as an export model to other potential nuclear newcomers in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the lessons Turkey learnt through this process may be beneficial for other countries interested in the Russian offer.

A unique challenge – physical securityMoreover, the physical security aspect of Turkey’s future NPP will be challenging, and will deserve close attention. As a country that has had to deal with domestic terrorism for the last four decades, Turkey now faces additional threats emanating from the Syrian civil war, both in terms of spillovers and with regards to jihadist terror organizations such as the ISIS. Turkey also has rival states around its southeastern border, and NPPs, such as the Akkuyu which

will be located approximtely 300 km away from the Syrian border, may present high value targets for state actors and terror organizations alike.

It is also worth noting that there is an increased interest to develop nuclear energy in the Middle East. Although regional politics are mired with mutual mistrust and instability, the newly signed Iran deal may present a great opportunity for the states to cooperate in the field of nuclear energy. For the time, the only such cooperation exists between the Gulf States on emergency management, but there may be grounds for deepening and diversifying it in the future. If such a scenario is realized, Turkish experiences and cooperation may come into play as valuable contributions.

*Doruk Ergun is a research fellow at the Istanbul based independent think-tank Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM) where he works on security, foreign policy and nuclear issues.

28

08FRANCE AND GERMANY,THE TWO EDGES IN NUCLEAR EUROPEFor almost four decades, France has been the nuclear “champion” of Europe and one of the strongest nuclear powers in the world. On the contrary, Germany has decided to phase out all of its nuclear reactors until 2022. In simple words, this contradiction means that the European Union lacks a single and unified nuclear policy. The question is obvious: Under these circumstances, is it possible to talk about a common energy market in Europe?

Nuclear energyGeorge Pavlopoulos

29

The two leading European powers, the countries that form the powerful “axe” of the European integration, since the end of World War Two are moving towards opposite directions regarding nuclear energy. Almost four decades ago, in the 1970s, German support for nuclear energy was very strong, following the oil price shock of 1974, and as in France, there was a perception of vulnerability regarding energy supplies. But during the years, things have changed significantly.

Today, France is the number one nuclear power of Europe, covering almost 75 percent of its energy needs from its reactors. As for Germany, 1986 proved to be a crucial year for its stance. The Chernobyl accident and the resolution passed months later by the Social Democrats (SPD) to abandon nuclear power within ten years, has altered the country’s attitude, which is already moving towards phasing out all of its reactors by 2022.

Of course, the governments in Berlin and Paris have good reasons to stick to their policies – even though they are facing serious troubles from time

to time. Especially in the era of high debt and budget cuts, regarding public investments – either in the form of green energy subsidies or as aid for troubling companies.

Nevertheless, the Germans forcefully promote the models of “green energy” and “low carbon economy”, having already become global leaders in this area. As shown from the results from a study titled, “The Energiewende in the energy sector: the state of affairs in 2014”, presented by the Berlin-based think tank Agora Energiewende, last year and for the first time ever, renewable energy sources were the most important source in the country’s power mix. With a share of 27.3%, renewables held first place, replacing lignite for the largest share in energy consumption.

Meanwhile, the German energy market has become very attractive for neighboring countries. Last year, they imported 34.1 terawatt hours on balance. This amounted to 5.6% of energy produced in Germany, reaching a new record with an export balance that was 0.3 terawatt hours higher than in

2013. The trend for rising energy prices has also been broken. Energy prices for private, as well as commercial buyers and industry decreased slightly for 2015 compared to the previous year.

On the other hand, nuclear power has helped the French gain their energy independence, which is of great importance for the pride of a nation already lacking in many other areas, including their economy. The current situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to rapidly expand the country’s nuclear power capacity, using Westinghouse technology. This decision was made in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but very few known indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimizing imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost of electricity in Europe. It

Nuclear reactors in Germany

30

also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro. As for the French retail prices, without major effects from feed-in tariffs for wind and solar, they remain very low. In 2013, the prices for medium-size industries were approximately at 90% of the EU-27 average, and those for medium-size households (at less than 8 c/kWh) were less than half of the EU-27 average.

France’s dependence and addiction on nuclear energy is so large, that the government is already toning down promises made by Francois Hollande during his electoral campaign in 2012, to cut the capacity of nuclear power in France’s electricity generation from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2025. Indeed, Energy minister Segolene Royal has come out in support of building new nuclear plants to replace older ones.

The great differences between Germany and France regarding the use of nuclear energy mean that a common energy policy in the EU cannot exist, at least for the time being. But despite those differences, the two countries aim at promoting their ambitious goals during the forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference, which is to be held in Paris from November 30th to December 11th, 2015. Even by starting from different positions, they have decided to be champions in the reduction of CO2 emissions – France through the use of the “clean” nuclear energy and Germany through the use of the cleaner but much

Facts about Germany

• Until March 2011, Germany obtained one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The figure is now about 17%.

• A coalition government formed after the 1998 federal elections had the phasing out of nuclear energy as a feature of its policy. With a new government in 2009, the phase-out was cancelled, but then reintroduced in 2011, with eight reactors shut down immediately.

• The cost of attempting to replace nuclear power with renewables is estimated by the government to amount to some €1000 billion without any assurance of a reliable outcome, and with increasing reliance on coal, especially lignite.

• Public opinion in Germany remains broadly opposed to nuclear power with virtually no support for constructting new nuclear plants.

• Almost half of Germany’s electricity is generated from coal.

• Germany has some of the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe and some of the highest retail prices, due to its energy policies.

Facts about France

• France draws approximately 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. This percentage is to be reduced to 50% by 2025.

• France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its extremely low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

• France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

• It is building its first Generation III reactor.

• About 17% of France’s electricity comes from recycled nuclear fuel.

31

more expensive green energy.

“Climate change and prosperity have to go hand in hand”, Merkel said during her meeting with the French president in May, adding that the fight against climate change could not come at the expense of competitiveness and that “we cannot go without growth, we just have to generate it in a different way”. Hollande, from his part, also stressed the need for “technologies that allow for lower emissions”, and that the international community must “think of innovative ways to attract investment”.

It is obvious that behind the words used by the leaders of Germany and France, one can find both green and nuclear energy. The “translation” of diplomatic expressions such as “generate in a different way” and “technologies that allow for lower emissions” is all yours. As for the future, it is still unpredictable…

The giant (Areva) is suffering from a headache…

The nuclear group Areva is a flagship for France, its economic power and its role in the world. The company has built nearly 100 reactors around the world, in France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and China. At the same time, it is servicing more than 250 of the 440 operating reactors worldwide – more than half of which are over 30 years old, and 73 are over 73 years old themselves, according to the data from IAEA. Furthermore, Areva is a top player in nuclear decommissioning, which already generates 500 million of its 8,3 billion euro yearly revenue.

But Areva’s record 4,83 billion euro loss in 2014 underlined the troubles the group is lately facing. Especially after a series of shockwaves during the last years, that have jolted the case for nuclear:

the 2011 Fukushima disaster (the first Japanese reactor restarted only in August…), Germany’s exit from nuclear, the rising of renewable energy output and, finally, the US shale gas revolution, which provided the world with another alternative.

But, of course, Areva is too big to fail and France is not ready to let its flagship sink. As Economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, said last March, the government is examining the possibility of forging an industrial alliance between Areva and Electricité de France, with EdF considering a massive capital investment in Areva’s reactor business. This would lead to the creation of a French global and European energy “champion”. But this is something that might face difficulties from other countries, within the frames of the European Commission and the WTO…

Nuclear reactors in France

32

09GREENPEACE: NUCLEAR ENERGY? NO, THANK YOU!The Nuclear Age began in July 1945, when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” Program at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism. But, as we know, there is nothing “peaceful” about all nuclear things. More than half a century after Eisenhower’s speech, the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is. The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.

Nuclear energy

The future of the planet’s climate, the lives and livelihoods of billions of people depend on the energy generation choices being made today. We have the opportunity to stabilise climate change, end the nuclear nightmare and tackle the inequity of fuel poverty afflicting one in three people on the planet. Two billion people currently live without reliable access to life enhancing energy services like light and heat. For the planet and its people we must all make the right choice. We must choose efficient and safe enewable energy sources over dirty and dangerous nuclear power.

The potential of renewable energy is vast and far greater than that of nuclear power or climate changing fossil fuels. With today’s technology we can generate almost six times the current global energy demand. Why listen to the nuclear industry, which has offered us false promises and lies time and time again? Why let it drag us backwards to the past and believe that nuclear power is needed to tackle climate change when we can look towards the future, a clean future based on renewable energy sources; a future free of more radioactive waste and

the nuclear proliferation nightmare that accompanies nuclear power?

The choice is not only about how to replace existing power plants. One third of the world’s population, some two billion people have no reliable access to energy supplies, this inequity cannot be relieved by the 1950s nuclear nightmare, but only by the efficient use of diverse and decentralised renewable energy systems.

The promotion of nuclear power as the answer to climate change is a dangerous diversion from the real solutions: a massive uptake of renewable energy and the adoption of energy efficiency are the only effective ways to combat climate change. They are available now; they are clean, cheap and have the added benefit of providing energy security.

Nuclear power belongs in the dustbin of history; it is a target for terrorists, and a source of nuclear weapons. The future can be nuclear free. Renewable energy is peaceful energy and it is available today.

While the nuclear industry’s 1950s dream of clean energy that would be

33

too cheap to meter lies in economic and environmental tatters, that same industry is now desperately trying to convince us that it is the solution to climate change. While the world is struggling to manage the vast mountains of radioactive waste, which have been produced over the last half-century, many in the finance industry dismiss it as ‘too expensive to matter’.

It is sobering to remember that 21 years ago on April 26, the industry was brought to a standstill by the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; an accident, which emitted an unstoppable and deadly plume of radioactivity that travelled the world and the effects of which can still be measured today; an accident, which could be repeated by any one of the world’s 400 or so nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power has not suddenly

become safer or cleaner. The legacy of the nuclear waste remains unsolved and accidents happen across the world daily. However, the nuclear industry is using climate change as an excuse to save and even expand its ailing business. The industry has a history of broken promises and lies; lies, that continue with its claim to be the solution to climate change.

The environmental, social, security and proliferation problems that have always plagued the nuclear industry continue to do so, despite over half a century of attempts to find solutions. We should not be conned into accepting one environmental threat on the premise that it will avert another when a future free of both nuclear and dangerous climate change is possible through the speedy deployment and development

of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency.

With the use of existing technology, Japan achieves energy intensity one seventh of that of China (that’s seven times more energy service per unit of energy used). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations could save 30% of energy, and developing nations up to 50%. Lighting an average European household uses only a third of the energy used for lighting in U.S. households.

The nuclear industry has seized on the problem of climate change to try to revive its dying industry. It argues that nuclear power can help achieve the dramatic cut in carbon emissions necessary to seriously address climate change, but the reality is that wasting yet more time and money pursuing the nuclear nightmare would be too late, too expensive, too risky, and could lead to nuclear weapons proliferation, because the majority of nuclear technologies and materials needed for a civil nuclear power program are also essential to develop a nuclear weapons program. The massive subsidies needed by the nuclear industry threaten to undermine the renewable energy revolution, which is the real solution to climate change.

Key reasons against nuclear

• Nuclear energy is an expensive diversion from the task of developing and deploying renewable energy, energy efficiency and the more decentralised energy systems required for a low carbon future

• We can reduce carbon emissions much more cheaply and more effectively using renewable energy and energy efficiency measures

• No proven solution exists for dealing with radioactive waste

• Expanding nuclear power internationally would hugely increase the risks from terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation

• Nuclear power plants cannot be built in time to make even the smallest difference

34

10THE TURKISH AND THE GREEK STREAM ARE STILL UP IN THE AIR…The minister, Mr. Panos Skourletis, wanted to give the impression of continuity in terms of the government’s energy policy, although nothing is the same after the agreement reached at the Summit of July 13th. Everything indicates that Mr. Skourletis will seek to soften the “corners” of the international energy policy, which during the period of Mr. Lafazanis ministerial tenure, leaned toward the Russian side, causing very strong turbulence both in relations with the European Union and the USA.

Geopolitics of energyPenelope Mitroulia

As a “change of baton and not a change of direction”, the Minister of Productive Reconstruction of Greece Mr. Panos Skourletis* described the replacement of Mr. Panagiotis Lafazanis in the leadership of the ministry which determines the energy policy of Greece. However, the fact is that the so-called “Lafazani opening” to Russia and the agreement on transit through Greek territory of the South European Pipeline (official name of the Turkish Stream) gave rise to the wrath of the Europeans as well as the Americans who proclaimed their opposition to this option, in all possible tones.

So despite the fact that Mr. Lafazanis insists that the South European Pipeline is a project of “national importance”, which will bring economic, political, and geostrategic benefits, Mr. Skourletis at a clearly lower pitch, notes that the agreement on the “Russian” pipeline is undoubtedly a positive development, with an utterly positive outlook.

But regardless of what position that the new Minister of Productive Reconstruction will maintain, serious questions are raised about whether the

Russians themselves will ultimately want to promote the project or use it as a “weapon” in negotiating their own relationship with Europe.

The doubts were fueled by Gazprom’s sudden decision to request the suspension of deliveries of the piping for the projects in Turkish Stream, both in the section on Russian territory as well as in the underwater section, on the line that would unite Russia with Turkey.

The Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak recently stated that Gazprom’s decision to cancel the contract it had with the Italian company “Saipem” for the construction of the underwater section of the Turkish Stream, is due to technical reasons and does not affect the pipeline. This followed Gazprom’s letter to the pipe suppliers for the land (onshore) section of the project on Russian territory, via which it informed them that deliveries of materials were suspended.

The technical reasons cited by Mr. Novak did not appear to have convinced the market. Many analysts highlight

*Notice: The Greek Government resigned on August 20th and new elections will take place by the end of September. The energy policy of the new government will be defined further to the elections, but one should not expect any major changes.

35

the millions of dollars the cancellation of these orders costs as well as the particular relations of Saipem with the Russian group. The Italian company is a subsidiary of ENI, and is working with the Russians for many years and had even undertaken the construction of the underwater section of the South Stream, (predecessor of the Turkish Stream) pipeline that Moscow cancelled after the obstacles the EU put forward.

At the same time they indicated however, that the official Russia-Turkey agreement on the project had not been signed, nor the agreement on gas prices, for which the Turkish State company Botas is threatening Gazprom that it will appeal to International Arbitration.

However, Russia hopes to sign the intergovernmental agreement on the Turkish Stream pipeline as soon as a new government is elected in Turkey, according to the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. “Indeed, an intergovernmental agreement has not been signed. The reason is that there is no government. Our partners in Turkey are going to form a government,

however it is not so simple”, said Mr. Medvedev and added:”We are in contact with them. I hope that once all the political issues are resolved, we can reach a final agreement on all issues”.

At the same time, Europe is sending a message in all directions that it does not want Ukraine to stop being a transit country for the Russian gas, while the President of Ukraine Pyotr Poroshenko, just days after the collapse of talks with Gazprom about the price of gas, expressed his confidence that the agreement between the Ukrainian Naftogaz and Gazprom on the transit passage of gas will extend beyond 2019 because there is no other alternative. 2019 is a landmark year, as the contract with the Russians then expires, and it will not be renewed, as Moscow has declared.

Slovakia is a collateral victim of this decision, which risks being plunged into financial crisis if the tap of gas from Ukraine is turned off, since a significant part of its GDP, approximately 14-15%, results from gas related activities.

The entire issue is further complicated

due to the German agent. It is significant that on the day the Greek-Russian agreement for the South European Pipeline was signed in St. Petersburg, Gazprom signed an agreement with Shell, the German E-on and the Austrian OMV for doubling the capacity of the Nord Stream pipeline, who links Russia to Germany and with the appropriate interconnections, it could transport gas to Central and Southern Europe, bypassing Ukraine.

One thing is certain: that the upgrading of the Nord Stream pipeline and the simultaneous construction of the Turkish Stream cannot coexist, as they shall cause a gas oversupply in Europe since the quantities that both conductors can carry exceed 100 billion kilometers of gas per year, in a market that currently consumes approximately 40 billion kilometers. So far, however, Russia declares that it will proceed with the South European Pipeline.

In fact, at a conference organized in Athens for the penetration of natural gas into Greece, Timofey Khryapov, CEO of VEB Capital, a subsidiary of the Russian

36

VEB bank, which participates at a 50-50 percentage with the newly established company of the Greek State in the Greek section of the pipeline, reaffirmed the Russians’ interest for the project. At the same conference, Mr. Pericles Katsioulas, CEO of Euramax, which functions as investment adviser, made a comprehensive presentation of the pipeline. According to that presentation, the Greek section of the pipeline will have a total length of 670 km with three possible interconnections: towards Italy via an undersea pipeline, to FYROM-Serbia-Hungary, or towards Bulgaria-

Romania-Slovakia. Its capacity in the European leg will reach 47 billion cubic meters per year, while an additional amount of 16 billion kilometres per year are destined for Turkey. Simultaneously, possible synergies with other projects are examined, such as the TAP pipeline, the Greek-Bulgarian, Greek-Italian, the East Ring pipeline, etc.

The TAPIn this issue, the role of the TAP which was planned to carry Azeri gas via Greece and Italy to Europe should not be underestimated.

The latest developments regarding the TAP pipeline at an international level, concern information on the withdrawal of the Norwegian Statoil from the pipeline, which according to a statement made by the chairman of the Azerbaijani State gas company, SOCAR, plans to sell its 20% share it holds in the pipeline. “Statoil has decided to withdraw entirely from the project and there is a company that is ready to buy its share”, said Rovnag Abdullayev, on a television network of Azerbaijan. It is noteworthy that a few days earlier, the head of the Italian networks company Snam expressed interest in the acquisition of the 20% share in the TAP. The CEO of the Italian company Snam Mr. Carlo Malacarne, estimated that the price falls within approximately 400 million Euros, given the market conditions. Mr. Malacarne in a statement in the Corriere della Sera newspaper, mentioned that there are actually shareholders of TAP pipeline willing to sell their share to the Italian company.

Statoil avoided commenting on the statements of the Socar’s chairman, but the Norwegian group has already sold its shares in the natural Shah Deniz gas field as well as the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP) to the companies Socar, BP and the Malaysian Petronas. The TAP pipeline shareholders are currently BP with 20%, SOCAR with 20%, Statoil with 20%, the Belgian Fluxys with 19%, the Spanish Enagas with 16% and the Swiss company Axpo with 5%.

As for the Greek government’s position against the TAP pipeline, the Minister of Productive Reconstruction Mr. Panos Skourletis has not yet given any hint of his intentions for the pipeline. However, his predecessor Mr. Panagiotis Lafazanis despite the fact that he had declared his support to the project, insisted throughout his tenure in the ministry, to be in negotiations with the management of the TAP company. These negotiations related to four key issues: the compensation of farmers for the lands the pipeline will cross, the redesigning of the route in certain points further to demands of locals, the counterbalancing benefits and the taxation of the profits.

Serious questions are raised about whether the Russians themselves will ultimately want to promote the project or use it as a “weapon” in negotiating their own relationship with Europe

37

11ATHENS WANTS

PUBLIC PPC AND IPTO, HOWEVER...

The Greek government, based on the commitments made under the Eurozone summit on July 13th, will attempt to find the so-called “equivalent measures” that will allow it to maintain public control in the strategic nature of the energy sector and particularly in the Independent Power Transmission Operator (IPTO or ADMIE). Lenders, however, may have a different opinion...

ElectricityPenelope Mitroulia

It is unnecessary for several people to jump to conclusion and prejudge what will happen from now on, and no more needs to be said on the matter... As for the Government, defending the public character of the PPC and all its subsidiaries remains an issue of strategic significance”.

Using these very words, the Greek Minister of Productive Reconstruction, Mr. Panos Skourletis*, from the very first moment he set foot at the Ministry at Mesogeion Avenue further to the reception of his duties ceremony from the departing minister Mr. Panagiotis Lafazanis, he rushed to reply to all those talking about drastic changes in the Ministry’s policy regarding the energy sector.

According to al indications, Mr. Skourletis has chosen to seek and find equivalents in terms of competition in the energy market and to avoid the privatization of the IPTO. Besides, this option is clearly offered to the Greek government by the Agreement reached at the summit of the Eurozone member countries of July 13th.

As specifically stated in the Summit communication, which was signed by the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the government should formally commit to “moving towards the privatization of the Independent Power Transmission Operator (IPTO), unless equivalent replacement measures can be found, with an equivalent effect on competition, based on the agreement with the institutions”. At this point, one must not forget that December when the privatization process of the IPTO froze due to the announcement of elections, four companies had expressed non-binding interest: the Italian “Terna”, the Belgian “Elia”, the Canadian fund “PSP” and the Chinese “State Grid China Corporation”.

Consequently, Mr. Skourletis, taking the baton from Mr. Panayiotis Lafazanis, clearly states that “we will follow the route of alternative equivalent measures, as is the case in other European countries in respective fields”.

“We must realize, Mr. Skourletis says, that the role and the fixed assets of the PPC, managed by IPTO, are priceless.

*Notice: The Greek Government resigned on August 20th and new elections will take place by the end of September. The energy policy of the new government will be defined further to the elections, but one should not expect any major changes.

38

Our intention is to preserve the public character of the PPC and the companies of strategic importance”.

Based on this position of the Government, a number of scenarios are examined with a common denominator for the PPC to not lose control over the IPTO assets, meaning the high-voltage electricity transmission network.

One of these scenarios is for the Greek State to purchase the IPTO from the PPC. Thus the IPTO will cease to be a 100% subsidiary of the PPC and in its position, a new company controlled by the State will be created. Based on this plan, privatization is avoided, since its control remains in the hands of the government, but the IPTO is no longer controlled by the PPC and thereby the equal access of all participants in the network is ensured, and by extension in the electricity market. Under ceratin conditions, private individuals could enter the company’s share capital with smaller shares or even the PPC could maintain some shares.

This scenario has several resemblances

with the predictions of the first law on the liberalization of the electricity market, which already, in 2001 provided for the establishment of an independent limited company (the Hellenic Transmission System Operator – HTSO) in the share capital of which all electricity producers would participate, depending on the market percentage they hold.

The questions raised about this scenario basically regard the State’s financial capacity to afford and purchase the 66% of IPTO from the PPC. The company had been estimated to cost 660 million Euros, a capital that the State naturally does not possess. There is also the idea of offsetting the State’s debts to the PPC, however these are currently estimated at approximately 150 million.

The second question however, is whether the Europeans will be persuaded that the Greek proposal ensures competition in the domestic market. Nevertheless, similar models in which the State participates together with pension funds in the company that manages the electricity networks also apply abroad. Questions are also raised

regarding the funding of the projects that have to be made in the networks, meaning not only investments in the expansion and interconnection of the islands, but the maintenance of the network as well.

Regardless of the model that will ultimately be selected, it is certain that stakeholders have expressed their categorical opposition to the privatization of IPTO. The chairman and CEO of the PPC, Mr. Manolis Panagiotakis, speaking at the company’s general meeting, just hours after the announcement of the summit agreement of July 13th, expressed its opposition to the privatization of the IPTO.

“We are opposed to the sale of the IPTO” he stated. “It is unprofitable to deprive the PPC of such a valuable asset for a totally temporary and occasional price. Specific models can be formulated suiting the best European practices without having the PPC lose such a valuable asset”.

Mr. Panagiotakis noted further that the PPC guarantees the secure supply

39

of the country with electricity and the smooth functioning of both the units and the network, despite the temporary problems. He also advised, attention during the implementation of the model of “cheap” auctions of electricity from the PPC’s lignite and hydro units (NOME model to open the competition in lignite and hydro energy production), with view to the effects on the consumers.

He spoke of a “Frankenstein- market” as it has been formulated in recent years with diffuse regulations and stressed that individuals are free to engage in the retail market, given that they undertake the risk and move ahead and proceed with investments.

“The change in the ownership status of the IPTO does not arise from any EU Directive. The PPC is property of the Greek citizens and will not be sold off. We will fight to cancel the lenders attempt to dismantle the largest enterprise in the country”, stated the chairman of the Public Power Corporation Workers’ Federation (GENOP-PPC), Mr. George Adamidis, while both the Chairman and CEO of IPTO Mr. Yiannis Manolis and Mr. Koroniotakis Blanas seem to be standing at a similar wavelength.

According to a statement issued by the GENOP-PPC after a meeting of its Bureau with the administration of the IPTOP, the lenders’ persistence to sell the company, when in no EU Directive does it follow that it must change the ownership company, was characterized

as an “incomprehensible obsession”, let alone when the selection of the model of an Independent Transmission Operator (ITO) resulted from the Law 4001/11 passed by the government in power, on;y in order to align our country with the EC Directive 2009/72”.

The administration of IPTO and GENOP- PPC agreed to jointly apply the maximum efforts possible towards the Ministry of Productive Reconstruction, to prevent the sale as this will be disadvantageous for the country, the PPC and consumers as they support is definite that the sale of the IPTO will lead to an increase in the electricity tariffs.

Indeed GENOP PPC notes that the persistence of lenders to sell the IPTO only concerns Greece since the corresponding ITO model functions and is applied in at least six EU countries, including France, Hungary, Denmark, Croatia, Bulgaria and Estonia.

However the question of the IPTO is not the only one Mr. Panos Skourletis is facing. The opening of the electricity and natural gas markets is at the heart of the European energy policy and is now expressed through the plan for the Energy Union.

The government, is therefore, called to open the electricity market to competition by harmonizing it with the EU legislation, which makes it the country’s obligation to equal access to low-cost electricity generation

sources, such as lignite and water. The government is also required to hold auctions of cheap lignite and hydro energy (based on the French NOME model), where the PPC will be obliged to sell to individuals, part of its production and at low prices. They, will then have to resell this energy to customers, meaning households, commercial stores and industries. But everyone knows that the measure itself is transitory, and inadequate to open up the market.

Similarly, the agreement provides for more specific measures as for example, in electricity, the obligation to increase the power in agricultural tariffs that can reach up to 30% -40%. This increase results from the commitment that the PPC tariffs should be based on the actual cost of the company and thus to eliminate any benefit policies.

The cost of the non-liberalization of the electricity market is expected to be even heavier for the energy intensive industry, which is facing the loss of discounts in PPC tarrifs, at least in accordance to the agreement reached with our lenders. The agreement also provides for the cancellation of discounts and their replacement with tariffs that reflect the cost of the PPC.

40

12ROMANIA CUTS TAXES, BENEFITING THE ENERGY SECTORAccording to the new Fiscal Code that will be implemented as of January 1st, 2016, Romania will gradually eliminate the construction tax applying to oil companies and will cut the general VAT from 24% to 19%. Furthermore, the burden of 7 euro-cents per litre of fuel will be also scrapped, as it did not benefit the State budget during the last year and a half.

OverviewEmilia Damian

A new Fiscal Code will be implemented in Romania starting as of January 1st, 2016. The new Fiscal Code, the most important package of fiscal and financial measures and laws of Romania, is considered by analysts as a step forward from the old tax law. Certain measures were taken despite the recommendations of the IMF and the European Commission. But The Fiscal Council overturned two draft Codes (fiscal and fiscal procedure), taking the wide cuts of the taxes that it provides as unsustainable.

The most important changes to the Tax Code are: – Reduction of VAT from 24% to 19% as from January 1st 2016; – Health contributions are blocked at three gross average wages; – Elimination of the special tax on constructions for oil sector (so-called “pole tax”) from 2016, after it was already reduced from 1.5% to 1% last year; – Elimination of the excise of 7 eurocents per litre of fuel, which was introduced from April 1st 2014, but has not had the desired effect on the state budget, affecting domestic consumption of gasoline and diesel;

– Reduction of the tax on dividends.

The fact is that the country’s President, Klaus Iohannis, sent the Senate the re-examination request on the Law concerning the Tax Code, due to the fact that the tax cuts are too wide. The head of State underscores that “the Legislature must promote a balanced and reasonable attitude, meant not to generate dysfunctions which, afterwards, may need frequent corrections of a legislative nature”, a reason for which “policies generating excessive taxation or accentuated relaxation should not be promoted in drawing up a new tax code”.

“The austerity measures of 2010 must remain history. Returning to risky fiscal policies with long-term negative consequences, represents an experience which not only the political class can no longer afford, but, mostly, their costs should no longer be supported by the citizens”, Iohannis stated in the re-examination request.

In his opinion, “the economic welfare unanimously desired by all political forces of Romania to the benefit of the citizens

41

and the economic agents, can only be reached through a responsible, long-term predictable tax-budget approach, in accordance with the sustainable economic growth objectives”.

“The mere fiscal relaxation, unaccompanied by the continuation of the process of increasing the revenue collection and by a sustainable resetting of the budgetary expenditure, for public money spending as reasonable as possible, may lead to accumulating imbalances which will encumber the future economic and social developments”, Iohannis points out.

A political fightPrime Minister Victor Ponta stated that the rejection of the new Tax Code by President Klaus Iohannis, can possibly be explained as either “a purely political decision to block the economic activity of the Government at any cost”, or “a decision made outside Romania and against Romania’s interests”.

“The decision made by Mr. Klaus Iohannis to reject the new Tax Code (agreed upon and lauded by the business environment, voted unanimously in Parliament, was awaited by the Romanian society as a whole not only because it slashes the VAT to 19 per cent, but because it guarantees the economic and social development of the country), has only two possible explanations: it is a purely political decision to block the economic activity of the Government at any cost (what Traian Basescu did regardless

of the negative consequences); or it is a decision made outside Romania and against Romania’s interest that Mr. Iohannis must apply at any risk (something that not even Traian Basescu would have ever done)”, the Prime Minister stated on Facebook.

According to Ponta, “regardless which of the two options is real, it is the worst

possible news for Romanians (and for those who voted in November, the clearest sign they were deceived).”

National Liberal Party’s (PNL) first deputy chairman Catalin Predoiu told a press conference that the arguments for which President Klaus Iohannis sent the Tax Code back to Parliament are correct and that the re-examination of the document “is required as a consequence of bad governance”. Predoiu stated that economic reforms are necessary for a successful implementation of the Tax Code.

“In PNL’s program, in our public statements, even before the adoption of the code we have stated, during parliamentary debates, that economic reforms are necessary for its successful implementation and that in no case can we switch to pro-cyclical measures, unless the financial and budgetary balance is preserved. This is no post-factum reaction, but our constant reaction that we used to warn and demand the Government to do its job to prepare the successful implementation of the Tax Code. (…) We do not disregard our governing program, but we are invoking it because it contains both reform measures and measures to accompany and achieve tax unburdening, all for the preservation of the financial and budgetary balance”, said Predoiu.

In his opinion, Prime Minister Victor Ponta “is switching the discussion from an overdue governance issue to a political matter, in which he is not right either”.

“Returning to risky fiscal policies and with long-term negative consequences represents an experience which not only the political class can no longer afford, but, mostly, their costs should no longer be supported by the citizens” – Klaus Iohannis, the President of Romania

42

13“CROSS-CHECK” FOR THE OIL PRICE IN ROMANIAThe Romanian authorities are determined to verify whether the gasoline and diesel prices in the country have dropped according to the international quotations of the crude oil and the trends on the global market.

Oil & GasEmilia Damian

The Competition Council began to monitor the retail fuel market to verify if oil companies had actually reduced gasoline and diesel prices given that oil prices fell by half last year, to around 50 dollars, the President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Chiritoiu, announced.

“We are monitoring market developments and we want to see how quickly the substantial reductions in the price per barrel will affect the price at the pump. We may monitor several weeks to settle things and then we’ll know whether to intervene or not. We will follow Eurostat, the prices in Romania, with and without taxes and the prices in the rest of the European Union”, said Bogdan Chiritoiu.

He added that there is some “slowness” in passing raw material price reductions in the selling price of fuel.

“They (the oil companies) had announced price reductions, I want to see them. We will monitor and see if, indeed, they actually dropped the prices. We will see how they are related to raw material price reduction and how

it looks compared to prices in other EU countries”, said Chiritoiu.

In addition to the above, in order to stimulate competition in the fuel market, the Competition Council wants to find ways to simplify bureaucracy in the process of setting up a gas station.

“Lately, new oil companies have entered the Romanian market to set up their stations, and some of them are already expanding their networks. Apparently, it’s hard to set up petrol stations in Romania, bureaucracy is very complicated and we will try to find alternatives to simplify this process”, said Chiritoiu.

A historical fineAt the end of 2011, the Competition Council sanctioned the largest six oil companies on the Romanian market with a fine of about 205 million euros for the formation of a cartel. Following the investigation, the competition authority found that the six companies had breached both the Competition Act as well as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union market, by setting simultaneous withdrawal of the

43

assortment of Eco Premium gasoline.

OMV Petrom, the largest oil company on the Romanian market, had received a fine of 366.5 million lei. OMV Petrom Marketing (the date the infringement operate OMV filling stations) was fined with 137.2 million lei, while Rompetrol Downstream was fined with 159.5 million lei. Lukoil Romania was fined with 136.8 million lei, MOL Petroleum Products with 80.2 million lei and ENI Romania with 11.1 million lei.

Oil companies have challenged the fines in court, however, the competition authority won irrevocably. So far, the court has irrevocably settled lawsuits with three of the six oil companies pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

Taxes for the state budgetLast week, OMV Petrom announced that the international prices for gasoline, according to the company set prices at the pump, have risen further this year, although oil has become cheaper. The largest part of this, the taxes, represents 50% of the final price in Romania.

The company noted, however, that it reduced prices by 0,4 lei in recent weeks.

“Prices at the pump reflect international prices for gasoline and diesel. International quotations of gasoline

and diesel oil are influenced by the quotations of the crude oil and other elements; therefore they can have short-term diverging developments. This was included in the first part of this year, when international prices for gasoline increased significantly”, said the representatives of OMV Petrom.

The company reminded that, in Romania, half of the price paid by the drivers at gas stations, actually represents taxes to the state budget.

In the first six months, the average price of Urals crude fell to $ 57.09 / barrel, 47% lower compared to the same period last year, and the average crude oil price was at $ 49.51 / bbl compared to $ 96.24 / bbl in the first half of last year.

The largest companies on the local market are in order of the network stations size: OMV Petrom, KMG International (Rompetrol), Lukoil and MOL.

“International quotations of gasoline and diesel oil are influenced by the quotations of the crude oil and other elements, therefore they can have short-term diverging developments” – OMV Petrom representatives

44

14ELECTRICITY MARKET IN BULGARIA TOWARDS LIBERALIZATION The long-term power purchasing agreements, preferential feed-in-tariffs and social discontent are hampering the normalization of the energy market in Bulgaria, where the cost of electricity is a politically sensitive issue, capable even of toppling the country’s government...

ElectricityAtanas Georgiev

It is quite often the case that the international media cannot get it right when it comes to the local politics of small countries. But the mistakes in the media reports of the recent strike against the electricity prices in Bulgaria are very much justifiable. On July 26th, more than a thousand workers marched through the streets of Sofia – the Bulgarian capital, demanding lower electricity prices in order to maintain their jobs. Some media outlets, however, didn’t realize that these were not the ordinary household consumers who usually hit the streets to protest against their bills.

The marches were an unusual industrial action, which also included switching off the electricity consumption in the striking factories (the electricity system operator data didn’t show any variations), organized by several industrial associations in response to the increase of power rates for industrial consumers up to 20 percent from August 1st. The industrial users say the planned increase will damage their competitiveness and lead to massive worker layoffs.

Electricity costs are a politically sensitive

issue in Bulgaria, where protests triggered by the high bills toppled the government of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov in 2013. And the current government lead by Mr. Borissov once again, is very sensitive about the topic.

Paying for preferential pricesThe price hike that caused the protests was adopted in June by the Energy and Water Regulation Commission (EWRC) in an effort to cut down the huge deficits in the energy sector. At the end of 2014, the regulator already increased the electricity prices for the household consumers by 10 % and it was the turn of the business consumers to take the hit.

From 2013 on, industrial consumers that chose to turn to the free market (i.e. not benefit from prices set by the regulator) were in a pretty good position, benefiting from the political aim to promote the process of market opening. On the one hand, the EWRC raised regulated prices for businesses; on the other hand, it sharply reduced prices and they moved to the free market.

To do so, the regulator artificially

45

deflated the so called obligation to society in 2013 and 2014. This is a special levy which is paid by all users in order to finance government policies in the renewable energy sector, support for high-efficiency energy, and the costs incurred by the National Electricity Company (NEC) from its long-term contracts. Up until recently, electricity (without the cost of transmission and distribution) for households was worth 6.39 cents per kWh. 2.3 cents of which were an obligation to society levy, while businesses on the free market only paid 0.96 cents. This hidden subsidy costs NEC €150 mln. annually.

In May 2015, the EWRC decided to make the obligation to society levy equal for all consumers. A special discount was included for large industrial consumers, who were supposed to skip some of those additional costs in order to maintain their competitiveness. Despite that, the regulator’s decision set off fierce opposition from certain industrial associations.

Finally, as of August 1st, the prices of electricity dropped by 0.11% for

households, while they were increased by between 4 and 17% for businesses.

How to create a financial holeThose soaring deficits, for example the retail charges which were too low to cover the NEK’s (the single buyer for the households and small business) expenditures in order to buy energy from the producers, were formed in recent years. The growth of renewable sources of electricity, new long-term PPAs and the increase of the electricity prices of the industrial and central heating cogeneration installations (due to the hike of the natural gas prices) – all of which NEK is legally obliged to buy created an annual deficit between 200 to 300 million Euros. In 2012 alone, the installed power of the photovoltaic plants increased by 687% from 150 to 1030 MW. The regulator has refused to compensate the company with increase of retail prices for the households and small businesses.

In addition to previous expensive investment decisions (e.g. the construction of a new nuclear power plant that was later abandoned) the price

freeze lead to accumulation of debts in NEK amounting to approximately 2 billion Euros in the past five years.

Filling the wholesThe protests forced the government to change the law and force the regulator to postpone the price increase by a month. The idea was to find reserves in the energy system to hold the retail prices from a steep increase.

In the beginning of 2015, the first three victims of the financial chaos in the Bulgarian energy system were the cogeneration power plants, AES and ContourGlobal as well as the renewables.

The changes of the energy laws abolished the preferential feed-in-tariffs for green energy. Only the small photovoltaic (under 200 KW) and certain biomass installations were allowed to keep the subsidized prices. This action was intended to control the future increase of expenditures for green energy, but it did little to alleviate NEK’s existing burdens.

The largest cost reduction came from

46

the so-called industrial and central heating plants. Until recently, they used a legal loophole that allowed them to sell their entire electricity production to NEK, not only the high-efficiency electricity (i.e. energy which saves at least 10% of the primary energy resources used for its production).

The negotiations with AES and ConturGlobal will be concluded by the end of August 2015 and will slash 50 mln. Euros annually from their guaranteed capacity payments. Both investors enjoy lucrative profits, but only on paper since their partner – NEK, paid approximately 50% of the money due. This was a strong incentive for negotiations, but some energy observers complained that the reduction is low. Guaranteed by long-term PPAs, ConturGlobal Marica-iztok 3 sells its electricity for 63 Euros and AES Galabovo for 75 Euros per MWh. Their state owned competitor Marica-iztok 2, operates on the free market and achieves only 40 Euros per MWh.

The overall savings from those two steps amounted to €150 mln. But due to the fact that the regulator decided to offer additional discounts to the businesses, they were not enough the fill NEK’s financial hole.

New amendments to the Energy law followed with the aim to slash the same expenditures. The renewable sector lost another €26 mln. from its annual €600 mln. subsidy. Some of the cuts were justified, but some were based on

fooling with the technical rules in the renewables’ long-term contracts for the purchase of electricity. The investors threaten to take legal actions. But this was not enough to guarantee a less drastic increase in prices.

The parliament imposed a 5 percent fee on revenue for electricity producers and importers. The antivipated revenue of €70 mln. will go to a special fund that will finance part of the obligations to society levy, but the measure was accepted with mixed feelings. It angered trade unions, because they are afraid of lay-offs. The state owned power electricity producers were not happy either, because they have limited margins to increase their prices to compensate for the lost revenues, and traders protest because they fear that wholesale prices will go up and the Bulgarian electricity exports will become uncompetitive.

At the same time, the new fee might have collateral effects. It will collect funds to reduce the obligations to society levy. But electricity producers might attempt to raise the wholesale prices in order to compensate for the lost revenues which will render the measure meaningless to a large extent.

This is not the last episode in the Bulgarian energy drama serial. In September, the regulator is expected to trim the electricity prices anew. And later on, at the begging of 2016 the season finale might come – the complete opening of the electricity market in Bulgaria.

Electricity costs are a politically sensitive issue in Bulgaria, where protests triggered by the high bills toppled the government of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov in 2013. And the current government lead by Mr. Borrisov once again, is very sensitive about the topic

www.mobilenews.gr

Online Technology & Lifestyle Magazine

news - phones - tablets - apps & games - lifestyle - auto - video➤

Mobile News GR

@kinitanea

48

15LUKOIL’S NEW PLANS FOR THE BLACK SEAThe Russian oil group Lukoil is planing on drilling two oil wells in the Romanian waters of the Black Sea by the end of the year. This is what the group’s president Vagit Alekperov announced this summer.

Oil & GasAda Gavrilescu

Last year, the Russian energy giant Lukoil spent USD 189 million on exploration and production activities in Romania. This was 27 times more than the amount spent in 2013 – proving the group’s great interest in Romania. More specifically, the group’s exploration and production expenditure in Romania increased from USD 7 million in 2013 to USD 189 million in 2014, as it kicked off its exploration activities in the Black Sea.

The country is considered as a promising area, together with Iraq, Uzbekistan or the Caspian region. The company plans to invest USD 200-300 million in drilling the two new offshore wells. The works on the first well already begun in November last year. As a total, Lukoil is prepared to drill five wells in the Romanian Black Sea, according to its 2014-2015 program, three of which are mandatory and two are optional.

Partnership with RomgazThe Romanian natural gas producer Romgaz will be the partner of Russia’s second-largest crude oil producer to dig two exploration wells in two Black Sea blocks next year, a company official

was quoted saying. Lukoil has a 72 percent stake in the project, U.S.-based PanAtlantic an 18 percent stake, while Romgaz has held the remaining 10 percent since last year. “We plan to dig at least two wells together with Lukoil”, Romgaz development director Radu Gheorghe was quoted having said.

The project begun four and a half years ago, when the government approved a concession deal for the oil exploration and development of the offshore Est Rapsodia and Trident blocks in the Black Sea to Lukoil. In fact, in February 2011, as a result of a tender held in July 2010, a consortium including Lukoil Overseas signed concession agreements with Romania’s National Agency for Mineral Resources to explore and develop the two blocks in the Romanian Sector of the Black Sea.

In May of the same year, Lukoil Overseas opened an office in Bucharest to manage these projects. The Romanian government ratified the concession agreements in October 2011. After that, a new partner – Romanian national gas company Romgaz – joined

49

the project. To date, project partners hold the following stakes in the project: Lukoil Overseas – 72%; PanAtlantic (ex-Vanco International) – 18%; and Romgaz – 10%.

In 2013, Romania sold a 15 percent stake in Romgaz, raising 1.7 billion lei in an oversubscribed initial public share offering. The company has said it could bid or partner international firms to explore other Black Sea blocks.

The two blocks have water depths ranging from 90 to 1,200 meters. The distance from the coastline is 60-120 kilometers, and the nearest large port on the coast is Constanta, where the project’s onshore base is situated. The total area of the license blocks is approximately 2,000 square kilometers. In 2012, 3D seismic data covering 2,000 square kilometers was acquired on the blocks. In November 2014, Lukoil Overseas started implementing the drilling program. The first exploration well (Helena-1X) was spudded at a depth of nearly 4,000 meters in water depths of around 200 meters on the Est Rapsodia block, 185 kilometers to

the east of the Romanian Black Sea coast. The drilling will allow the Helena prospect to be explored.

The next step of the drilling program will be to drill two exploration wells in the adjacent Trident block. In total, five prospects have been chosen for drilling offshore Romania as part of Lukoil’s exploration program in 2014-2015. These tree wells are mandatory ones, while the other two are optional.

“We plan to dig at least two wells together with Lukoil” – Radu Gheorghe, Romgaz development director

50

16CHINA EYES ROMANIAN REFINERYA Chinese company wants to buy the Romanian Petrotel refinery, that is currently under the control of the Russian Lukoil, who insists that it has no plans to sell its property.

Oil & GasEmilia Damian

The Chinese company China Peace Petroleum Group has expressed its interest in purchasing Lukoil’s Petrotel refinery in Romania, according to a letter obtained by Reuters. Lukoil insists it has no plans to sell the refinery.

China Peace Petroleum Group has mandated British Virgin Islands-based Kajel Holdings to represent its interests in the offer. In a letter of intent dated March, Ion Epureanu, general director of Kajel Holdings, asked Lukoil to start negotiations on buying Petrotel, Reuters reported.

A Lukoil spokesman confirmed receiving the letter and said the company had no plans to sell its Romanian refinery. Epureanu confirmed the content of the letter by phone but refused to comment, according to the media.

Last week Lukoil also received an offer from a private Romanian company to buy the Petrotel refinery. Lukoil then said the company neither had plans to sell the refinery nor to leave Romania or change Petrotel’s management.

The offers come as Lukoil is in dispute

with the Romanian government over the refinery which has lasted nearly a year. Lukoil appealed in a Romanian court after Bucharest seized €2 billion worth of Petrotel assets two weeks ago. The seizure was part of an investigation into suspected tax evasion and money laundering that allegedly cost €230 million. Lukoil has denied the accusations, calling them “totally unfounded” and hurting the business.

The investigation against Petrotel began in 2014. At the time, the Romanian authorities halted production and froze Petrotel’s assets and confiscated raw materials, crude oil, and other products. Later the refinery restarted its activities after authorities lifted a freeze on the assets and activity. Petrotel is one of the largest oil refineries in Romania and processes 2.4 million tons of crude per year.

Three bids were received by the Lukoil refinery in Ploiesti, according to sources of the energy market. The other two - from foreign companies, were led by Romanian citizens. One is in the insurance business. The others invest in oil exploration.

51

Another offerIn 2013, offers to buy the refinery were also submitted by Vienna Investment Trust SA, with financial intermediation activities.

Adrian Simionescu, Vienna Investment Trust Chairman: “We did offer to acquire all the assets of Romania and Moldova

and Petrotel refinery on behalf of a client we represent in the negotiations”.

Vienna Investment Trust is controlled with over 73% of the shares by Constantin Toma. He was president of Omniasig, a company of insurance, and shareholder Mija SA Industrial Park.

The third offer came from Universal Premium Fund, say market sources. The company, based in Luxembourg, has activities in the energy field.

The information about bids appear a few days before the magistrates to hear the appeal on the seizure of Lukoil shares on the Russian giant. Prosecutors accuse the Russians of laundering €2 billion by Petrotel accounts.

Dan Paul, the president of Romanian Brokers said: “In a transaction of this scale things should not appear in public at first, because the company that wants to buy such a business in Romania should first make a “due diligence” as they say in the world of lawyers to see what the problems are and then continue steps to complete the transaction”.

Russia purchased the refinery in Ploiesti from the Romanian state in 1998 for 16 million dollars. The production capacity is smaller compared to the rest of the installations which only Russians have in Europe. In Zeeland, in the Netherlands, Lukoil processes 3.6 million tons per year, in Burgas, in Bulgaria - 9.8 million tons and ISAB refinery in Sicily refines 16 million annually.

Instead, the refineries at Ploiesti, may only produce 2.4 million tons of petrol and diesel in a year.

All this comes in the context of Platt’s quotations - stock gasoline and diesel in Rotterdam, forming sales prices - have fluctuated in recent years, around $ 700 per ton of refined products. The excise established by the Government in Bucharest is approximately 300 dollars and a ton of raw material means seven barrels. When the barrel costs 50 dollars, a simple calculation shows that Romania is profitable to refine, especially when the plant is used at maximal efficiency.

“We did offer to acquire all the assets of Romania and Moldova and Petrotel refinery on behalf of a client we represent in the negotiations” - Adrian Simionescu, Vienna Investment Trust Chairman

52

17CNG: THE “PROFESSIONAL” TRANSPORTATION FUEL

Oil & Gas

CNG is gradually “conquering” individuals and professionals in Greece and abroad, raising the stake regarding the issue of natural gas competitiveness with cost savings and the reduction of pollutants being the key differentiating elements compared to conventional fuels.

53

Transport companies, consumer product companies, vehicle rental companies and professional taxi drivers now rely on the use of natural gas, and achieve savings of up to 66% compared to gasoline. In Greece, the best known authorized car dealers are importing natural gas professional use vehicles and trucks while the refueling network infrastructure is undergoing full development “paving” the way for professional drivers at even harder economic times.

Modern “business”Large multinational companies carry the bulk of transport with natural gas vehicles following the general observed worldwide shift to environmentally friendly fuels. Today there are approximately 20 million natural gas vehicles circulating, while the infrastructures have been developed to a large extent in order to serve the increased demand (international “blue corridors” program etc.).

These (measurable) advantages of natural gas are exploited by large companies and organizations such as

the DHL group, FEDEX, UPS, AT & T, COCA COLA etc. Greek companies which seem to be already more than aware of the benefits of CNG, are moving towards the same direction. Scientists and organizations are more and more involved in information initiatives regarding businesses and consumers concerning the use of CNG. According to Mr. Nikos Arkoulis, vehicle technology specialist, “CNG requires very little processing prior to its use. Chemically, it consists of methane at a concentration higher than 90%, with small amounts of ethane, propane, butane, carbon dioxide and other gases at very small concentrations. CNG’s high concentration in methane results is the fuel having a high number of octanes (120 - 130) and has characteristics of a very clean combustion reading to high engine performance and low pollutant emissions.

CNG also has further advantages compared to gasoline and petrol. It is not toxic and does not contain water or particles as liquid fuels do. Vehicles using CNG are very safe, both because of the use of CNG as a fuel, as well as

the safe performance of CNG vehicle parts and the vehicle CNG supply from the specific service stations”.

Privileges for taxis moving on natural gas Several taxis are already on the Greek roads with Athens and Thessaloniki holding “the first place” while the same is also occuring abroad where a series of initiatives are rendering natural gas as the exclusive fuel for professional drivers and ranks first in the terms of competitiveness compared to conventional fuels.

For example, taxi drivers in Chicago using CNG can drive for longer routes compared to their colleagues running on other fuels. How is this done? The answer is simple and lies in the “Green Taxi” initiative of the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) according to which, at the international Midway and O’ Hare airports CNG taxis can use the short-term parking zones. Thus, professionals enjoy reduced waiting time while waiting to pick up customers and simultaneously benefit from the known advantages of the use of CNG: cost reduction, stable

54

fuel price, lower emissions into the atmosphere, less maintenance costs and much less frequent oil changes etc.

The program has “driven” professional drivers to the exclusive use of natural gas abandoning conventional fuels while this trend is encouraged by a

number of related initiatives such as that of the (Chicago) Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, BACP. Professional drivers are “trained” thanks to communication and informative material available on the American roads regarding eco-driving: special signs, posters, messages and advice on economy driving, fuel consumption and other practical issues (speed setting, adequate tire pressure, etc.) are available to the professional public that shifts to gas.

Subsidy of commercial vehiclesDEPA, within the framework of the program for the further development of CNG vehicle movement proceeded, in agreement with the companies VIAMAR SA and MERCEDES-BENZ HELLAS, to subsidize a certain number of professional natural gas vehicles.

The subsidy refers to either reducing the purchase price of the vehicle or to the distribution of free fuel and aims at familiarizing professional drivers with ecological and economical natural gas (leading to saving on consumption of up to 60%).

Small and large companies as well as taxi drivers have subsidies at their disposal for the following models of professional use vehicles: • SKODA OCTAVIA 1.4 TSI G-TECH • MERCEDES B-CLASS 200 NGD • MERCEDES E-CLASS 200 NGD • MERCEDES SPRINTER NGD

DEPA will proceed and sign similar agreements with other companies importing factory-built CNG cars in order to expand the range of available models for both businesses and professional drivers.

It is worth noting that the DEPA group, in order to open the CNG market has set the FISIKON (trade name of natural gas for vehicular traffic) service and refueling stations at the disposal of private and professional drivers and is creating the necessary infrastructures so that the economic, safe and environmentally friendly fuel, will ensure autonomous and economic movement for a constantly increasing number of drivers across the country.

Vehicles using CNG are very safe, both because of the use of CNG as a fuel, as well as the safe performance of CNG vehicle parts and the vehicle CNG supply from the specific service stations

55

18CONTROVERSY

OVER SHELL ARCTIC DRILLING

The Obama administration gave Shell the “green light” to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, triggering many protests among activists as well as prominent politicians in the U.S. The fact is though, that the company had secured most of the licenses from the George W. Bush administration...

Oil & GasYiannis Pispirigos

56

After years of accidents, on August 17th, Shell received the final OK to drill for oil in the depths of the Arctic Ocean, north of Alaska. The approval from the Obama administration means that Shell can drill deep under the Chukchi Sea in an area that may contain as much as up to 15 billion barrels of oil. Shell has been granted permission to start drilling exploratory wells about 140m off the coast of Alaska –one of the best prospective offshore areas in the world.

They will not be able to drill deeper and in areas where oil is known to exist, until their vessel is equipped with a “capping stack” to prevent oil spills, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) at the US Department of the Interior ruled. The Finnish icebreaker, MSV Fennica, is Shell’s only vessel with that capability but is currently attempting to reach to a port in Oregon for repairs after damaging its hull on a shoal.

Protestors against the decision fear that drilling will irreparably damage the Arctic’s pristine and fragile environment and cause oil spills worse than the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as further global warming.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the US has said there is

a 75 per cent chance of “one or more large spills” happening if extensive drilling takes place across the Arctic.

“Without question, activities conducted offshore Alaska must be held to the highest safety, environmental protection and emergency response standards,” BSEE director, Brian Salerno, said in a statement.

The nearest coast guard station to the

area where the drilling will take place equipped to deal with oil spills, which is a habitat for marine mammals, is more than 1,000m away. In case of a spill, Shell would need to use their own equipment to recover the oil until other help could arrive.

“All the evidence shows Shell can’t drill safely in the Arctic. The extreme conditions means it’s when, not if, a spill will happen,” said Greenpeace Arctic

Hillary Clinton says “No” to Shell

US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton voiced her opposition to Arctic drilling a day after the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell final approval to drill off the coast of Alaska in a move green groups vowed to fight. “The Arctic is a unique treasure,” Clinton said on Twitter: “Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk of drilling.”

Clinton had previously said she was “skeptical” and had “doubts” as to whether the Obama administration should have given Shell the go-ahead for exploratory drilling. The oil company’s permit from the US Department of the Interior allows it to drill in the Chukchi Sea off the

northwest coast of Alaska. Shell halted its drilling program in the region after it lost control of a massive rig in 2012.

Clinton’s willingness to come out against Arctic drilling is at odds with her non-answer on whether she supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. When pressured on the issue, she said that it would be inappropriate for her to express an opinion, since she was head of the Department of State when the pipeline review process began.

Clinton outlined her own climate change plan in July, which focuses on incentivizing renewable energy sources.

Environmentalists protesting against Shell Arctic drilling.

57

campaigner Ian Duff.

“We remain committed to operating in a safe, environmentally responsible manner and look forward to evaluating what could potentially become a

significant energy resource base”, a spokesperson from Shell has said.

Shell’s plan is to use two rigs to drill exploration wells during the next two years. The Department of the Interior

halted their exploration and ordered them to address pressing safety issues. These earlier concerns have been resolved, the department has reported.

Questions & Answers for Shell Arctic drilling

What’s at risk?

Royal Dutch Shell PLC and other companies want to tap into U.S. Arctic offshore reserves that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates at 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Shell has invested upward of $7 billion in Arctic offshore investments. During the 2015 summer open water season, it hopes to drill two wells to begin determining whether there are commercial quantities of oil at its Burger Prospect, about 70 miles off the coast in the Chukchi Sea.

Offshore Alaska offers some of the most prolific, undeveloped hydrocarbon basins in the world, potentially increasing domestic supply by over 1 million new barrels of oil per day, according to Shell.

Why are the conflicts so intense?

Environmentalists accuse oil companies of not having demonstrated that they can clean up a major spill in ocean waters that range from open to frozen to slushy, putting the Arctic’s rich marine life at risk.

The drill sites are more than 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard base. The northern Alaska coastline lacks deep-water ports, major airports and basic infrastructure such as hotel accommodations for spill responders.

Critics also say opening a new, vast fossil fuel field will delay a transition to renewable energy. They say that it will add to the global warming problem that has hit the Arctic hard by reducing sea ice, a habitat critical to polar bears and walrus.

Is the drilling safe?

Exploratory wells will be drilled in water 130 to 140 feet deep - far different from the 5,000-foot water depth of the well in the Gulf of Mexico’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and blowout in April 2010.

The company says a blowout is unlikely but its flotilla of about 30 vessels will have everything on hand to respond if needed.

Drilling foes say Shell’s performance in 2012, the last time it sailed north, is evidence of what can go wrong.

One rig was separated from its tow vessel and ran aground off Kodiak. The other was fined $12.1 million for breaking maritime law.

What happened to Fennica in Portland?

The Fennica is a Finnish icebreaker. Its hull received a gash roughly 3 feet long and half an inch wide on July 3rd as it departed Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

Shell considered a temporary fix in Alaska but decided to make a permanent fix at Portland’s Vigor shipyard.

The vessel’s primary purpose is to carry a capping stack, a roughly 30-foot piece of gear that in a blowout can form metal-to-metal contact on a wellhead.

The capping stack is designed to shut off oil like a giant spigot or connect to hoses to direct oil to vessels on the surface. It would be maneuvered into place by an A-frame winch on the Fennica and underwater remote-operated vehicles.

58

19SMALLER IS BETTER FOR PHOVOLTAIC INDUSTRY IN ROMANIAAfter several years of growth and innovation, the PV Industry in Romania is facing a challenging period, with shifting market dynamics from large scale projects to small and medium systems.

RenewablesAda Gavrilescu

59

Romania has been one of the most dynamic markets in the last years as regards renewable energy and has a huge potential in the PV market. Our country added almost 1 MW of new photovoltaic capacity in the past eight months, despite the change of the support scheme for green energy producers.

The Law on Renewable Energy Sources adopted in June 2015, provides opportunities for the development of solar photovoltaic energy in Romania. This is the time when Romania’s PV market can grow even further.

Legislation (mainly law 122/2015) on regulated tariffs for small renewable players, feed-in tariffs, opens new opportunities for small projects, including PV and is expected to enter into force in October 2015 atthe latest. The support scheme will be approved for projects with volumes less than 500 KW.

The remaining time should be used to organize administrative, technical, fiscal and methodological aspects associated with the conditions of investments and the operation of PV systems. In order to secure a positive perception of solar energy photovoltaic, it is crucial to ensure the proper installation of PV systems with the use of high-quality components.

However, the State’s decision to cut subsidies for renewable energy has halted the development of new projects. The lack of interest by part of local banks to fund new projects and a drop

in the prices of green certificates on the stock market due to oversupply, also contributed to this.

“There are still ongoing projects, but the number is very low,” said Niculae Havrilet, president of energy authority ANRE.

New projectsThe National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) issued 110 permits last year for setting up new energy production units, 92 per cent of which being issued for renewable energy units.

According to an ANRE report, 71 permits for solar farms, 12 for wind farms, 9 for hydrocarbon-burning plants, 12 for hydropower plants, 4 for biogas plants and 3 for biomass plants were issued in 2014. Their installed energy production capacity totalled 1,056 MW.

The capacity installed in renewable energy units licensed in 2014 totalled 357 MW, of which 219 MW in wind

farms, 21 MW in hydropower plants, 34 MW in biomass plants, including those burning gas obtained from fermented waste and fermented water treatment mud, and 83 MW in solar farms.

Out of the total capacity installed in renewable energy units, 256 MW were taken out from the green certificates subsidy scheme in 2014 (4 MW from wind farms, 241 MW from hydropower plants with installed power of 10 MW at most, and 11 MW from solar farms), while an installed capacity of 515 MW was temporarily suspended from licensing, representing electrical plants with an installed capacity exceeding 125 MW that the European Commission was notified about in line with national legislation.

At the end of 2014, the capacity installed in licensed renewable energy units totalled 3,935 MW, of which 3,853 MW represented plants with electricity production licenses and 82 MW plants with construction permits.

“There are still ongoing projects, but the number is very low,” - Niculae Havrilet, president of the ANRE energy authority

60

20CLEAN ENERGY BEACONS AROUND THE WORLDDenmark is a leader in renewable energy development. In March 2012, the Danish parliament passed a historic new energy agreement to bring the country closer to its target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The agreement set a goal for renewables to provide 35 percent of the energy consumption by 2020, and including 50 percent of electricity from wind power. The country is well on its way there -it received more than 30 percent of its electricity from wind in 2012!

RenewablesYiannis Pispirigos

On a small island off the coast of Denmark, a group of farmers have turned into power brokers, owning the wind turbines that have made their island a net energy producer. In less than ten years, Samso went from producing 11 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year, one of the highest carbon emissions per capita in Europe, to just 4.4 tons, and has proven that running on 100 percent renewable electricity is possible.

Back in 1997, Denmark’s renewable energy ambitions coupled with an oil supply crisis, prompted the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy to hold a renewable energy contest. Competing islands had to present a convincing plan for converting their entire energy systems to renewables within ten years, in order to study how high a percentage of renewable energy, a well-defined area could achieve with no major grant funding.

All the energy being used on Samso was imported. An engineer thought the island would make a good candidate and submitted a plan. To the island residents’ surprise, Samso won.

“Commonity”The most remarkable part of the transformation on Samso is the involvement of the residents themselves -none of the projects have been imposed by outsiders or funded by major energy companies. Local farmers own 9 out of the 11 onshore turbines. The other two are owned by local wind cooperatives. Usually the wind turbine owner/shareholder realizes the initial investment in about eight years, and then starts earning a profit. One of the four district heating plants is also divided into shares and owned by local consumers.

At first, it wasn’t easy convincing this conservative island of farmers that they could, or even should, become a renewable energy showcase. Soren Hermansen, a local farmer and environmental studies teacher, took up the cause. He spent months going to community meetings and talking up renewables.

The key, according to Hermansen, was to convince Samsingers to participate themselves. “There was a certain fear that the project was just another hippie

61

Samso is not the only one…

Here are eight other places, apart from Samso, that are blazing a trail to a less polluting future.

Greensburg, Kansas

After a massive tornado destroyed 95% of the buildings in the town in 2007, the 1,400 residents had to choose if they would rebuild or relocate. A tough choice for a town that had been in decline for decades. But key to this green resurrection has been energy efficiency. Because of the ability to rebuild from scratch, residents were able to apply the most modern building techniques to Greensberg 2.0. The town now has the highest concentration of gold and platinum eco-design rated buildings in the US and all of its street lights are LED. All large government buildings are now rated platinum. This saves the town over $200,000 a year and, more importantly, reduces the town’s dependence on generating electricity.

Iceland

All of Iceland’s electricity comes from renewable sources, three quarters from hydroelectric dams on the glaciers and mountain sides and the rest from geothermal. Bores are drilled 1-2 miles into the thin crust of earth. Water pumped down into the hot rocks returns as high pressure steam, spinning turbines to produce electricity. The country also uses this heat directly. Two-thirds of the country’s primary energy comes from geothermal. Hot water is everywhere and is tapped to heat homes and offices. The streets of Reykjavik are kept snow and ice free in winter through a system of heated water pipes.

El Hierro, Canary Islands

The island is the most remote of the Canary Island chain and once generated power from an expensive diesel generator. Its residents claim to be the first islanders to have evolved to electricity self-sufficiency without connecting to a grid first –unlike Samso.

Copenhagen

Copenhagen is truly breaking new ground. It is set to be carbon neutral by 2025. This will involve halving its emissions and offsetting its remaining carbon use by producing more renewable energy than it consumes. Dolf Gielen, a director at the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), said cold cities with large heat energy requirements are counterintuitively well placed to shift their heat to renewable sources because they often have large scale centralized heat plants – rather than boilers in every

home. By 2025, the city says 75% of all journeys will be made either on foot, or by the use of bicycles or public transport. Copenhagen is now considering how it can transition away from fossil fuel use altogether by 2050. This will go a long way to helping the Danish government achieve its national goal of independence from fossil fuels in the same time frame.

Samoa

The government has set itself the target of achieving 100% renewable electricity generation by 2017, and is well on that course. Last year the UN climate chief Christiana Figures, congratulated Samoa on being a leader among small island states as they attempt to bypass the fossil fuel economy.

Fukushima

Devastated by a tsunami in 2011 and still suffering from the radiation spilled by the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the prefecture of Fukushima has declared its intention to rebuild itself as a renewable energy haven. But Fukushima’s government has committed to building enough renewable electricity capacity to supply its 2 million residents by 2040. Driving the transition is a focus on community scale solar and wind plants. By 2020, the prefecture aims to have 143 floating wind turbines with a capacity of 1GW installed.

Orkney

The Orkney Islands are home to Europe’s most productive wind turbine. During April, NM92 became the first wind turbine in Europe to click over 100,000,000 kWh – enough electricity to power a typical UK home for over 30,000 years. With its total exposure to winds sweeping out of the Northern Atlantic, Orkney – which translates from Icelandic to ‘energy islands’ – has become a beacon for renewable energy consistently producing more renewable electricity than they consume. Advanced testing of wave and tidal generation is also underway.

Tianjin Eco-city, China

The Eco-city is a $24bn model of sustainability. It is being built from scratch and, when complete, will be able to accommodate 350,000 residents. It is just one of hundreds sprouting across China as the urban population, swelled by the rural poor, grows by 13m each year. The city puts a premium on energy efficient buildings –a must for a country where coal smog has cut life expectancy in some areas by 5.5 years. Public transportation and modern urban planning will also help reduce pollution and carbon emissions.

62

bureaucracy project sent out by some smart Copenhagen top-down politicians and consultants”, Hermansen told. “My job was to tear these presumptions apart and break it down to daily things that related to everyone in one way or another.” He coined a term “commonity”– a combination of community and commons – which he referred to in his persuasive discussions with the locals to get them on board with the idea of becoming investors in local energy resources.

A smart business idea…By owning the turbines themselves, people didn’t feel as if the technology was imposed on them, but that they were making a smart business choice. They also came to realize the benefits that the green development would bring to the island in terms of new jobs, new businesses, and increased business from more visitors. The island’s tourism website, Visit Samso, includes a major section on Samso as a renewable energy island.

Samsingers now export millions of kilowatt-hours of electricity from renewable sources to the rest of

Denmark. The Samso Energy Academy, opened in 2007, is a source of renewable energy research, education, and training. The academy arranges exhibitions and workshops that attract more than 5,000 politicians, journalists, and students from around the world every year. Researchers from both Danish and foreign educational institutions are able to conduct energy research at the Academy and island residents can get free advice on sustainable solutions. Furthermore, it functions as a conference center where companies, researchers, and politicians discuss renewable energy, energy savings, and new technologies.

Hermansen has since been named one of TIME magazine’s Heroes of the Environment, and travels around the world telling the story of Samso’s success. He believes that Samso’s progress can be a lesson for other places. “Scaling cannot be done the same way in a city”, Hermansen admits. “But the lesson learned is that it is more about people, communication, and common interest than about technology. When you realize this, it is easier to see the scalability.”

On a small island off the coast of Denmark, a group of farmers have turned into power brokers, owning the wind turbines that have made their island a net energy producer

The Samso Energy Academy

63

21FACING GLOBAL

WARMING WITH FIVE GREEN TECHNOLOGIES

Here are five new green technologies that are worth following in order to tackle global warming. The latest technology innovations prove that we are left with the few, rare ideas that have a real shot at impacting our lives and the climate problem…

Renewables

Over the last 20 years there have been 1.2 million granted patents and published patent applications on the clean tech, also known as green tech, patenting site CleanTech PatentEdge. This means a huge amount of innovation in technologies that could help us tackle climate change. In reality, though, most of these ideas may never see the light of day and cannot be practically produced on a mass scale.

Transparent solar cellsImagine a phone or building or car being able to harness energy through its glass. The “glass” which is actually more of a film, selectively captures and converts ultraviolet and near-infrared light into electricity to power a mobile device and extend its battery life. Speaking to the Guardian, display specialist Bob Raikes says the technology is not yet ready to take over from batteries, but it “could significantly raise the time between charges.”

64

Biodegradable batteriesHere are some sobering facts about batteries and recycling: 22,000 tons of household batteries end up in landfills every year, according to Recycle More. And recycling rates are at around 10 percent. We really need batteries that are more efficient, biodegradable, or at least made of sustainable materials.

Enter “aerogel”, “a squishy wood-based foam substance” that was recently developed into a battery by American and Swedish scientists. Mostly made from pulp, the battery is lightweight, elastic and high-capacity.

While this is an exciting development, the Guardian warns, “but these technologies are unlikely to transform the home battery market just yet. Both are still early stage (at least 5-10 years away from commercial market) and still expensive to produce on a mass scale”.

In the meantime, we have Energizer’s EcoAdvantage, introduced into the market in February. Four percent of the battery is made from recycled parts but its maker aims to increase this number

to 40 percent by 2025.

Charging carsGoogle’s driverless cars and Elon Musk’s Tesla have gotten all the attention, leaving out the slightly important matter of so called charging cars. Which technologies are in development to make this more sustainable?

If plugging in your electric vehicle (EV) every evening doesn’t sound quite sexy, we understand. Imagine an EV that

charges while it runs. Qualcomm Halo, along with BMW and Volkswagen, have been busy exploring the development of wireless electric vehicle charging (WEVC).

“Trials have already been carried out in London and according to Anthony Thomson, the vice president of Qualcomm Technologies, “the future of urban mobility is electric and wireless – and wireless EV charging holds the key to mass adoption of EVs”, writes the Guardian.

65

Hydrogen fuel cellsIf only we could find a suitable replacement for oil to power our automobiles… Actually, Toyota and Hyundai are turning the leaf with commercial releases of hydrogen-fuelled cars.

Intelligent Energy is one of the companies behind the recent advance in hydrogen fuel cells. CEO Henri Winand has declared that “the hydrogen age has arrived” and it isn’t just cars in which he plans to place his cells.

Quoted in the Guardian, he’s stated, “We are deploying fuel cells to replace small diesel back-up generators in India on a landmark scale… and the rollout of our charger Upp in Apple stores in the UK brings us a step closer to consumer electronics”.

Microgeneration boilersWhen contemplating a new technology to solve an important problem, like climate change, Economics are always fundamental. The technology must be affordable or it won’t fly even if we’re choking in smog. Fortunately, some of

the technology we need is becoming accessible and practical. Just look at the increase in solar panel installation in the last year. What about a technology for the domestic boiler?

British company Flow claims to have heeded the call “with the launch this year of a domestic gas boiler that generates electricity while it heats the home,” reports the Guardian. Flow also claims that it also reduces emissions by 20 percent.

Information from EnergyDigital.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

22ENERGY 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