South-East Europe’s gas market has stopped behaving like a collection of national utilities buying pipeline molecules and passing them through regulated tariffs. It is turning into a corridor-and-liquidity system where the marginal price is increasingly set by LNG access, storage withdrawal rates, and cross-border interconnector capacity rather than by any single long-term contract. The region is still structurally import-dependent, but the nature of dependence is changing: the risk is shifting from “Do we have gas?” to “Can we move gas where it is needed, when it is needed, at a financeable cost, under tightening political constraints?”
The most visible structural change is the rise of LNG as the region’s balancing fuel. Two corridors now dominate the SEE LNG story. One runs through Croatia’s Krk terminal into Central Europe. The other runs through Greece’s LNG complex into Bulgaria and onward to the Balkans. These corridors are not just physical infrastructures; they are pricing mechanisms. They determine how much the region can decouple from Russian pipeline dependence, how quickly it can respond to winter shocks, and how expensive that decoupling will be once Russian volumes are politically restricted or commercially risk-priced.
Croatia’s Krk LNG terminal is now a strategic hinge for both the Balkans and landlocked Central Europe. Its regasification capacity has effectively doubled, moving to 6.1 bcm per year after an upgrade and new unit testing. That single number matters because it transforms Krk from a “national security” terminal into a regional supply source that can meaningfully influence hub pricing across multiple markets. In commercial terms, Krk’s role is reinforced by the pattern of long-term capacity reservations and auctions for future gas years, signaling that buyers are no longer treating it as a backup but as a base-layer supply route.
Greece is the other LNG gateway, and it is becoming the region’s most important diversification platform because it sits at the intersection of LNG import, Balkan interconnectors, and onward transmission into Southeast Europe. Greece’s legacy LNG terminal at Revithoussa has regasification capacity around 5.1 bcm per year, and its strategic value comes from being a mature, operational import node that can respond quickly to market signals. The more transformative addition is the Alexandroupolis floating storage and regasification unit, which operates with regasification capacity of 5.5 bcm per year and LNG storage around 153,500 m³. Alexandroupolis matters not only for Greece, but for Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and the wider Balkans because it turns the Greek system into a forward supply hub rather than a domestic balancing system.
Once LNG is inside Greece, interconnectors determine whether it becomes Balkan gas or stays Greek gas. The Greece–Bulgaria interconnector has been operating at 3 bcm per year with an expansion pathway to 5 bcm per year, and its flow profile shows why it has become critical infrastructure: it has carried cumulative volumes of nearly 40 million MWh from Greece to Bulgaria since commercial launch, with 8.49 million MWh flowing in the first ten months of 2025 alone. In parallel, the Bulgaria–Serbia interconnector has entered operations with annual capacity of 1.8 bcm, a number that is structurally large relative to Serbia’s typical annual consumption profile because it creates a real alternative to a single-route dependency. The commercial meaning of 1.8 bcm is that Serbia can now access LNG-linked molecules via Bulgaria and Greece, not only Russian pipeline flows, even if price and contract terms still determine how much of that capacity is actually used.
LNG access, however, does not guarantee security of supply. Storage does. In SEE, storage is the market’s shock absorber. Storage turns a volatile import system into a winter deliverability system. The critical metric is not only total storage volume, but daily withdrawal capacity—how many million cubic metres per day can be pulled out during a cold snap, when pipelines are constrained and spot prices spike.
Serbia’s storage reality is concentrated in a single strategic asset: Banatski Dvor underground storage. Its working gas capacity is currently 450 million m³, with an expansion underway that targets 750 million m³ by end-2026 and raises daily withdrawal capability to 10–12 million m³ per day. Those withdrawal rates are the real macro variable. When a country can withdraw 10–12 mcm/day, it can keep industry and district heating running through demand peaks without panic buying at the top of the curve. Serbia’s challenge is that Banatski Dvor’s ownership structure and the pace of expansion both sit in a geopolitical shadow; the facility is majority-owned by a Russian-controlled entity at 51%, with Srbijagas holding 49%, and the expansion CAPEX is about €145 million. This matters because storage is not just steel and geology; it is governance, financing, and operational reliability.
Bulgaria’s storage pivot follows a similar pattern, but at a larger strategic scale. The Chiren underground storage facility is the country’s core buffer. Its current active gas volume is commonly cited around 550 million m³, while the expansion program aims to lift active capacity to 1 bcm and increase daily injection and withdrawal rates toward 8–10 mcm/day. This expansion is not a technical footnote; it is the difference between Bulgaria acting as a transit corridor and Bulgaria acting as a regional hub with optionality. When storage rises from roughly half a billion cubic metres to 1 bcm, Bulgaria can absorb larger LNG inflows in summer, manage seasonal arbitrage, and offer the Balkans a more stable winter supply profile.
Hungary, although sometimes categorized as Central Europe, is functionally part of the same SEE corridor system because it is a key transit and balancing market for the Balkans. Hungary’s gas storage depth is one of the largest in the region. Its main storage operator has disclosed total working gas storage capacity of 4.43 bcm, plus an additional 420 million m³ capacity. These numbers matter for Serbia and the wider Balkans because when Hungary is well stocked, it can act as a regional balancing pool; when it is tight, it competes for LNG and corridor capacity, pulling prices up across interconnected markets.
Romania’s storage system is also material because it combines storage with domestic production and Black Sea-linked strategic optionality. Romania has multiple underground storage facilities, and the system scale is substantial enough to influence regional winter pricing dynamics. In practical terms, Romania’s capacity to meet storage targets early and maintain high fill levels reduces the probability that Balkan markets experience extreme winter price spikes purely due to supply panic.
These infrastructures sit above a changing layer of market players. The most important shift is that gas is no longer dominated only by national incumbents buying long-term pipeline gas. It is increasingly shaped by portfolio traders, LNG aggregators, and infrastructure operators who remember that the margin in gas is often not in the commodity itself but in capacity rights: regas slots, pipeline capacity auctions, storage withdrawal rights, and cross-border nominations. The emergence of floating terminals and expanded interconnectors has created more “routes” than “molecules,” and the players who control routes become the price setters.
A key indicator of this shift is the behavior of state-owned and semi-state portfolio buyers. The Hungarian state group MVM has explicitly positioned itself to manage a future where Russian gas becomes restricted by policy. It has secured LNG regas capacity of 1 bcm per year via the Krk terminal and signed additional supply arrangements totaling 600 million m³ per year starting from 2026, while still importing Russian volumes of about 3.5 bcm via TurkStream in the current structure and balancing the remainder through spot markets to meet Hungary’s roughly 8 bcm annual demand. The macro implication is that SEE gas pricing is moving toward a hybrid model: long-term base volumes plus LNG-linked balancing, with spot markets increasingly used to patch shortfalls and capture arbitrage.
This is where market trends become decisive. The first trend is LNG normalization, not just LNG addition. Krk at 6.1 bcm/year and Alexandroupolis at 5.5 bcm/year together represent a scale that can meaningfully influence regional marginal pricing. But LNG’s economic impact depends on downstream constraints: can interconnectors and storage absorb LNG in summer and deliver it in winter? Without storage and transmission reinforcement, LNG capacity sits idle or becomes an expensive emergency valve.
The second trend is storage as the new geopolitical asset class. Storage is now treated like strategic infrastructure because it is the only tool that can convert seasonal LNG inflows into winter security. That is why storage expansions—Banatski Dvor toward 750 mcm, Chiren toward 1 bcm—carry more strategic weight than many new pipeline announcements. They reduce tail risk. Tail risk is what drives political intervention and extreme prices.
The third trend is tightening policy risk around Russian gas. The region’s historical dependence on Russian pipeline molecules has not disappeared overnight, but the direction of travel is clear: the policy environment is moving toward restrictions that begin affecting certain contract structures as early as mid-2026 and tighten toward an end-2027 horizon in EU policy planning. For SEE, this is not only a question of replacement volumes; it is a question of replacement logistics. Replacing pipeline gas with LNG requires regas capacity, shipping availability, terminal slots, and inland evacuation. Every one of those layers introduces a cost that did not exist in the old model. The new equilibrium is more flexible but structurally more expensive in logistics terms.
The fourth trend is the emergence of a “capacity market” inside gas itself. What trades is increasingly not just gas, but access: reserved unloading slots at LNG terminals, long-term capacity bookings on interconnectors, and storage rights. Greece’s LNG slot auctions being heavily reserved for multi-year periods reflects a market that is pricing optionality, not merely short-term commodity needs. This shifts bargaining power toward infrastructure owners and early capacity bookers.
For SEE economies, the macro implications follow a clear chain. Greater LNG and interconnector capacity reduces the risk of catastrophic supply disruption, which is economically valuable because it stabilizes industrial output, district heating, and fiscal contingency costs. But greater LNG dependence also raises exposure to global LNG pricing cycles, shipping tightness, and the cost of inland transport. Countries with stronger storage and better interconnection can arbitrage and smooth these shocks. Countries without them become price takers.
The economic winners in this landscape are those who control three levers simultaneously: LNG entry, storage depth, and cross-border route optionality. Greece increasingly controls the LNG entry lever. Croatia controls an important northern LNG entry lever. Bulgaria is positioning itself to control transit and storage leverage via Chiren expansion and corridor connectivity. Serbia is improving route optionality with 1.8 bcm/year interconnection capacity and aiming to deepen storage to 750 mcm with 10–12 mcm/day deliverability, but its bottleneck is execution speed and governance.
The central macro risk is that SEE becomes structurally better supplied but structurally more exposed to price volatility, and that governments respond with fiscal interventions that become harder to afford as energy costs rise. This is why storage and capacity planning have become fiscal policy issues as much as energy policy issues. When storage is deep and corridors are redundant, price spikes are shorter and less politically destabilizing. When storage is shallow and corridors are singular, price spikes force intervention.
In 2026, SEE gas markets will therefore be defined less by a single supplier and more by a matrix of capacity values: 6.1 bcm/year at Krk, 5.5 bcm/year at Alexandroupolis, 5.1 bcm/year at Revithoussa, 1.8 bcm/year Bulgaria–Serbia interconnection, 3 bcm/year expanding to 5 bcm/year on Greece–Bulgaria, Serbia’s storage expansion from 450 mcm to 750 mcm with 10–12 mcm/day deliverability, and Bulgaria’s Chiren trajectory toward 1 bcm with 8–10 mcm/day rates. Those numbers are not infrastructure trivia. They are the new market architecture that will decide who pays the highest winter premium, who can keep industry running through shocks, and who can credibly claim energy security in a post-single-supplier era.
Elevated by virtu.energy