The ongoing debate between Croatian oil pipeline operator JANAF and Hungary’s MOL has escalated as both companies present contrasting views on transit charges and crude oil pricing. MOL has alleged that JANAF imposes excessive transit fees, claiming they are significantly higher than those of competing European routes. Specifically, MOL contends that the transit costs through JANAF are approximately three times greater than those on the Italian-German-Austrian TAL pipeline system, and about 50% higher than fees on Ukrainian routes.
In response, JANAF issued a statement rejecting these comparisons, arguing that the focus on transport costs per ton per 100 kilometers is misleading. The company highlighted that its pipeline is considerably shorter than Russia’s extensive Druzhba pipeline network. According to JANAF, the key metric for buyers should be the total transport price per ton of oil delivered to its final destination, rather than merely the distance traveled through the pipeline.
JANAF‘s analysis suggests that when evaluating total transport costs, its system is actually more competitive. The operator claims that transporting crude via its pipeline can be three times cheaper per ton compared to shipments through the Druzhba pipeline, asserting that this represents a relevant market comparison.
The Croatian operator also pointed out that transportation costs constitute a minor fraction of the overall crude oil price. It noted that Russian crude currently sells at around a 30% discount relative to non-Russian grades, which it argues is a significant factor in the price disparities raised by MOL.
JANAF emphasized its commitment to ensuring regional supply security, reporting recent successful deliveries of eight tankers carrying non-Russian crude to maintain steady supply lines to both Hungary and Slovakia. The company asserts that its operations remain fully functional and capable of accommodating alternative supply routes as necessary.
In conclusion, JANAF raised questions regarding whether the criticisms from MOL stem from legitimate concerns over supply security or reflect a preference for discounted Russian oil imports. The Croatian operator maintained that its infrastructure operates reliably and supports diversification of supply options within the region.
