Hungarian energy company MOL says it could be technically ready to phase out Russian crude imports by the end of 2027, but warns that the transition could raise costs and create political pressure in Hungary and Slovakia. The company is seeking European Union funding to expand alternative pipeline connections and strengthen regional energy security.
The request comes as the European Commission continues to prioritise reducing the bloc’s dependence on Russian energy. Hungary and Slovakia remain heavily reliant on Russian oil delivered through the Druzhba pipeline, making diversification a complex economic and infrastructure challenge.
MOL links Russian oil phase-out to energy costs
Speaking to Euronews, MOL Hungary chief executive György Bacsa said the company could eliminate Russian oil imports by the end of 2027 from a technical perspective. However, he warned that replacing the supply could increase energy costs for consumers and businesses.
Bacsa said higher costs could contribute to social unrest and political instability in Hungary and Slovakia. Both countries continue to receive substantial volumes of Russian crude through the Soviet-era Druzhba network.
The warning comes against a backdrop of higher petrol and diesel prices in Hungary, where opposition parties have criticised the government over the impact on households and motorists. A 2025 International Monetary Fund study cited in the report estimated that a complete interruption of Russian energy supplies could increase Hungary’s energy spending by about 15% by 2030.
That figure is an estimate rather than a prediction of what will happen. The effect of any phase-out would depend on alternative supply routes, global oil prices, infrastructure capacity and national energy policies.
EU energy diversification remains the central policy
The European Commission says Russian oil’s share of EU imports has fallen from 27% in 2021 to 2%. Despite that wider reduction, Hungary and Slovakia remain the only EU countries still importing significant quantities of Russian crude through the Druzhba pipeline.
The Commission has repeatedly made energy diversification a priority as part of the EU’s broader response to Russia’s war against Ukraine and efforts to reduce strategic dependence on Russian fossil fuels.
A Commission spokesperson did not rule out discussions about infrastructure projects, but stressed that the priority is ensuring member states have diversified energy policies and are no longer dependent on Russian oil, gas or liquefied natural gas.
For MOL, the issue is not simply a matter of paying more for non-Russian supplies. Bacsa argued that Central and Eastern Europe needs additional infrastructure to reduce the risks associated with relying on a single major route.
Why MOL wants EU funding for pipelines
MOL says restrictions on fossil-fuel infrastructure make it difficult to obtain EU support for the pipeline expansion needed to diversify imports. The company is calling for targeted European funding for infrastructure linking oil, gas, electricity and petroleum-product networks.
The company’s diversification plans include several possible routes:
- Adria pipeline: The route runs from Croatia into Hungary and could provide an alternative to Druzhba.
- Capacity testing: MOL has asked the European Commission to mediate a dispute with Croatia’s state-owned pipeline operator JANAF over testing on the Croatian section.
- TAL connection: MOL is interested in linking Hungary to the Transalpine Pipeline, which runs from Trieste towards Germany.
- Ukraine route: The company has also expressed interest in the possible resumption of the Druzhba connection between Brody and Odesa.
MOL and JANAF have been involved in longstanding disagreements over transport capacity, transit fees and the movement of Russian crude towards Hungary and Slovakia. The outcome of capacity testing on the Adria route will be important in determining whether it can provide a reliable substitute for Druzhba.
What the dispute means for Hungary and Slovakia
Hungary and Slovakia face a different transition challenge from many other EU member states because their refineries and supply networks have developed around Russian crude. Replacing that oil requires more than a political decision; it also requires sufficient pipeline capacity, compatible refinery operations and predictable commercial terms.
A successful transition could reduce exposure to supply disruptions and strengthen energy security. In the short term, however, alternative routes may involve higher transport costs or investment needs. Those costs could affect fuel prices, industrial companies and government efforts to protect households from energy-price increases.
The issue also has a wider European dimension. If infrastructure gaps leave some member states more exposed than others, the transition away from Russian energy could produce uneven economic effects across the EU.
What happens next?
MOL will seek EU support while continuing discussions about alternative supply routes. The European Commission has not confirmed that funding will be available for the projects proposed by the company.
The immediate priorities are likely to include:
- Resolving the dispute over capacity testing on the Croatian section of the Adria pipeline.
- Assessing whether existing alternative routes can handle the required volumes.
- Determining whether EU funding rules allow support for the relevant infrastructure.
- Managing the consumer and industrial impact of higher energy costs.
The situation is also linked to wider tensions between Hungary and Ukraine after the Druzhba pipeline became inoperable. Any future change in the route’s status could affect the timing and scale of diversification efforts.
Why this matters for the EU
The MOL request highlights the difficulty of implementing a common European energy strategy when member states begin from very different positions. The EU has sharply reduced its overall reliance on Russian oil, but the remaining dependence is concentrated in countries where infrastructure, refinery design and political concerns make a rapid transition more difficult.
EU funding decisions will therefore involve competing priorities: supporting energy security and regional connectivity while avoiding new long-term dependence on fossil-fuel infrastructure. For Hungary and Slovakia, the practical question is whether alternative supplies can be secured at a cost that consumers and businesses can absorb.
MOL’s position is that it can technically phase out Russian crude by the end of 2027, but that infrastructure investment and European support will be needed to limit the economic and political risks. The next major test will be whether alternative pipeline routes can be expanded and operated reliably before the deadline.