This is the transcript of the message delivered by Liviu Ilaşi, CEO of CONPET, during the 2016 Energy Strategy Summit, held on May 31 at Snagov Palace. For a sum-up of the main ideas, check our previous material: 27 essential ideas after Energy Strategy Summit 2016.

Hello, I greet you and I thank you for the invitation!

I want to take this opportunity to share some thoughts and ideas of myself, as well as of my colleagues’ I represent. Last week I was in Brussels to another important action for promoting Romania’s interests, especially for the players with activities in energy sector – Day of Romania in the European Parliament, organized by the Romanian Center of Energy, with a participation and setting just as generous as this one here, in the presence of the Commissioner of the environment and energy Mr [Miguel Arias] Cañete, many Romanian MEPs, and representatives of European companies. I began my speech by saying that I represent the largest company for liquid energy transportation in Southeastern Europe.

Obviously I did not intend to start my speech here, at home, from the same point, but I think it is also appropriate to start from this introduction, and then to stress on some other issue. That is that CONPET is the largest company not solely because it operates an extremely important strategic energy system in Romania, but also because it has a history of over 115 years, and at least 25 years of modern operations. The modernity of its activity is given both by the way the company was reorganized during this period, as the first oil company in the Communist industry to be transformed into a joint stock company in 1991, but also from being a modern enterprise in terms of how we operate transportation of crude oil, tank gasoline and condensate through our pipelines. Ii is my opinion that it is very important to start from this key info when we talk about the themes of today’s debate: the role and place Romania intends to have in energy-related activities, in our area of interest, at least.

Honestly, at the beginning, when I saw how speakers were selected for this panel, I thought the subject of oil transportation would be well developed and I was scared that I will not have too many things to say about our strategy and activities. What I see is that in fact nothing have been said in regard to this field. And then, I sincerely tell you that there are two explanations: either this strategy does not exist, or it exists, but it is so important that it cannot be unveiled here, or now.

I stubbornly believe that things are totally different. In the intervention that I had in Brussels I also have raised several issues that obviously needed answers. They didn’t come, but certainly they will soon come. When we refer the European energy strategy, and implicitly the Romania’s energy strategy, as part of Europe, we should not forget one thing: we are talking about European Union’ and Romania’ energy security. Talking about these two issues alone, we must acknowledge that – at least in the current context, we will see for how long – the transportation of liquid energy is just as important as gas transportation and electricity transmission are. Until recently, it was quite correct to say that a national carrier was sufficient without any interconnections with neighboring systems. This is now outdated. If we imagine a scenario, that nobody welcomes, for sure, this scenario would go something like this. Romania, as a border country of the European Union, is a gateway to the European Union, for oil among all the others. What happens if unfortunately, this gate is locked? What happens if the Black Sea would not be operable for crude oil transportation by ships anymore? In Romania, in 2004, there were nine functional refineries. Now, there are three, and the fourth is kept as a back-up. These refineries should be fed, obviously, because we cannot think that we can get rid of fuels overnight. The country’s domestic production is currently declining, in a natural decline. I do not know when this decline would be reversed, especially given the well-known fluctuations of prices for crude oil. [In such a scenario, the necessary] supply can only come from outside, from import.

With EU’s support, there was developed a vision for building an oil pipeline from Constanta to Trieste, for connecting two major terminals, the Oil Terminal’ one, at Constanta, and another one in Italy, with the possibility of interconnection with the Omisalj terminal. This project was considered at the moment to be built with one sense – from Constanta, to feed the refineries in Central Europe with the Black Sea oil. Now, all this must be reconsidered. It was an idea already presented here about Ukraine – the reversibility of gas transportation. The same is true for oil. If the refineries in Romania – which I repeat, will operate for a long time from now on – is to be properly supplied, we must also have this route – from the terminals at the Adriatic Sea, to Romania. It is an idea that I think would deserve an absolutely fair and objective framework for debate.

I finish now, by telling you one thing: first director of CONPET, at that a company with a different name, was Anghel Saligny. For him, sometime around 1901, the transportation project was defined as a channel through which the oil flows smoothly from springs up to Cernavoda and Constanta. Thus, he designed the first oil pipeline from Baicoi, Ploiesti, to Constanta, crossing the Danube on the bridge which he also built. As a bridge over time, I think Anghel Saligny’s vision is still valid, with a necessary correction: a pipeline linking terminals at Adriatic to Romania is required, given these discussions about a balanced development of energy transport routes [in Europe], both in the North, and in the South. A proper strategy cannot ignore the three poles of transport: liquid energy transportation, gaseous energy transportation and electricity transmission. The fact that this approach is feasible is supported by the very manner in which the EU reconsidered its position towards Nabucco. Nabucco and PEOP [Pan-European Oil Pipeline] were two strategic projects developed almost simultaneously. Nabucco project was dismissed, and now we are talking about BRUA. Why not having an absolutely correct approach in respect with oil transportation, also?

Thank you and I will be at your disposal for any questions.