Serbian pipeline operator Transnafta has submitted an environmental impact assessment for the proposed crude-oil pipeline between the Hungarian border and Novi Sad, moving the project into a critical permitting phase.
The planned route would begin near the Horgoš border crossing and continue through Novi Sad and the municipalities of Kanjiža, Senta, Ada, Bečej and Žabalj before reaching Transnafta’s Novi Sad terminal. From there, crude could enter the domestic network supplying the Pančevo refinery.
The pipeline is intended to provide Serbia with a second crude-import corridor through Hungary and the Druzhba system. Serbia currently depends on deliveries through Croatia’s JANAF pipeline, creating significant concentration risk around a single cross-border route.
The Serbian government declared the Hungary-Serbia pipeline a project of national importance in December 2023. The strategic argument has since become stronger as sanctions, ownership questions and geopolitical tensions complicate regional oil logistics.
According to the environmental documentation, most of the alignment will cross agricultural land, forests and water-management zones. Trenchless or buried crossings will be required at rivers, roads, railways and existing infrastructure. The assessment must address soil disturbance, groundwater protection, spill containment, construction waste, habitat fragmentation and emergency response.
Transnafta has already selected a consortium led by MVM Južna Bačka to construct the Serbian section following a tender launched in December 2025. The combined estimated value of construction and supervision procurement is approximately €131 million, excluding VAT.
Progress on construction supervision has been slower. Serbia’s Commission for the Protection of Rights in Public Procurement annulled part of the supervision tender, delaying appointment of the independent control function. This is not a minor administrative issue. Pipeline construction requires continuous verification of welding, non-destructive testing, coating, trench preparation, pressure testing, cathodic protection and reinstatement.
Allowing construction to advance without a fully mobilised supervision structure would create quality and evidence risks. Defects in buried pipelines become significantly more expensive to correct after backfilling, while incomplete inspection records can undermine operating permits, insurance coverage and future integrity management.
The project also depends on the Hungarian section and the availability of commercially and legally accessible crude within the connected system. A completed Serbian pipeline provides physical optionality, but it does not automatically guarantee supply volumes, compatible crude quality or exemption from geopolitical restrictions.
Its strategic value should therefore be measured as diversification infrastructure rather than a complete replacement for JANAF. Maintaining access to both routes would give Serbia greater negotiating leverage and reduce the consequences of an outage or political disruption on either corridor.
The environmental process now runs alongside construction preparation, land access and procurement. The €131 million programme can deliver meaningful supply-security value, but only through coordinated permitting, cross-border commissioning and independent evidence that the completed pipeline meets the required integrity and environmental standards.
