In 2025, natural gas pricing for heavy industry across South-East Europe was shaped far less by daily hub quotations and far more by structural access, contract indexation and security premiums. While wholesale European gas prices stabilised compared with the extreme volatility of 2022–2023, the delivered price paid by energy-intensive industry continued to diverge sharply across the region. For fertiliser plants, chemical producers, glass and ceramics, food processors with steam demand, district-heating-linked industrial clusters and CHP operators, differences of €5–15/MWh were common between neighbouring countries. At scale, those differences translated into millions of euros per year per facility.
Serbia occupied a distinctive position in this landscape. It was neither a fully hub-exposed market like Hungary nor a diversified LNG-backed system like Croatia or Greece. Instead, Serbia functioned as a contract-anchored gas market, where stability often came at the cost of optionality. Whether this was an advantage or a disadvantage in 2025 depended entirely on the buyer’s consumption profile and risk tolerance.
Serbia: Stability as a feature, optionality as a cost
For large Serbian industrial consumers in 2025, delivered gas prices most commonly clustered in a corridor of €35–45/MWh on an all-in basis, including the commodity component, transmission, system charges, balancing and supplier margin. Well-structured, large baseload consumers with firm annual contracts and predictable offtake tended to sit toward the lower end of that range, while seasonal or swing-heavy users gravitated toward the upper end.
The defining characteristic of Serbia’s gas pricing was low dispersion across the year. Winter premiums existed, but they were muted relative to fully market-exposed systems. This made Serbia comparatively resilient during periods of regional stress. When European spot prices rose sharply or when LNG cargo competition intensified, Serbian industrial buyers were often insulated from the worst spikes.
The downside was visible during softer market periods. When regional hub-linked buyers could take advantage of lower spot or short-term indexed gas, Serbian buyers were often locked into contracts that did not fully reflect the downside. In those months, Serbia appeared €3–8/MWh more expensive than the most optimised neighbours, despite similar fundamentals.
For heavy industry, this meant Serbia offered cost predictability, but not price leadership.
Hungary: Hub-linked pricing with high skill requirements
Hungary’s industrial gas pricing in 2025 was among the most market-native in the region. Large buyers with access to sophisticated procurement could achieve delivered prices in the range of €32–42/MWh, depending on indexation, storage use and flexibility requirements. However, less optimised buyers—particularly those exposed to winter firmness or daily swing—often paid €45–55/MWh or more during peak periods.
Hungary’s advantage over Serbia lay in optionality. Buyers could index to regional hubs, hedge forward, optimise seasonal spreads and access storage more flexibly. This reduced supplier margins for capable buyers. Hungary’s disadvantage was exposure: buyers who failed to hedge or misjudged seasonal demand were punished quickly.
For a baseload fertiliser or chemicals plant consuming 1,000,000 MWh/year, a well-executed Hungarian procurement strategy could outperform Serbia by €3–6/MWh, equivalent to €3–6 million per year. Conversely, a poorly executed strategy could underperform Serbia by a similar margin.
Hungary therefore rewarded competence. Serbia rewarded conservatism.
Romania: Domestic production, high dispersion
Romania’s gas market in 2025 was defined by extreme dispersion. Domestic production provided a structural advantage, but regulatory complexity and contract segmentation created wide gaps between best-case and typical outcomes.
For large, well-positioned industrial buyers, delivered gas prices could fall in a corridor of €30–40/MWh, occasionally undercutting Serbia. For others—particularly those without access to favourable contracts or flexibility—delivered prices frequently landed in the €45–60/MWh range.
This dispersion made Romania risky for heavy industry planning. Two identical plants could face €10–15/MWh differences purely due to procurement structure. Compared with Serbia, Romania could be either cheaper or materially more expensive, depending on buyer status.
For investors evaluating new energy-intensive projects, Romania’s gas pricing in 2025 offered potential upside, but with higher regulatory and execution risk than Serbia.
Bulgaria: Transit exposure and market sensitivity
Bulgaria’s industrial gas pricing in 2025 typically ranged between €35–50/MWh on a delivered basis. The country’s transit role and interconnection reduced isolation risk, but did not eliminate volatility. Bulgaria’s market tended to behave as a pass-through system, reflecting regional dynamics with limited damping.
Compared with Serbia, Bulgaria often appeared slightly cheaper during periods of oversupply or soft regional pricing. During tight conditions, Bulgaria could become more expensive due to exposure to transit constraints and regional competition for molecules.
For heavy industry, Bulgaria offered more market linkage than Serbia, but less stability. Over a full year, the average cost difference between Serbia and Bulgaria for a baseload industrial buyer was often within ±€3/MWh, but Bulgaria showed greater intra-year variance.
Croatia: LNG optionality as structural leverage
Croatia’s LNG access fundamentally altered its gas pricing dynamics in 2025. Delivered industrial gas prices typically fell in the range of €34–48/MWh, depending on contract design and flexibility needs. The critical difference versus Serbia was not always the headline price, but negotiating power.
LNG optionality compressed supplier margins. Even when LNG was not the marginal molecule, its availability acted as a ceiling on pricing. For large industrial buyers with credible alternatives, Croatia could often secure gas at €2–5/MWh below Serbia during normal market conditions.
During periods of LNG tightness, Croatia could become expensive quickly, sometimes exceeding €50/MWh for firm winter delivery. However, over the full year, Croatia tended to offer better downside participation than Serbia.
For new energy-intensive investments, Croatia’s gas market in 2025 appeared more flexible but less predictable than Serbia’s.
Greece: Diversification without cheapness
Greece had one of the most diversified supply structures in the region, with multiple LNG terminals and pipeline routes. Yet this diversification did not guarantee low prices. Delivered industrial gas prices in 2025 frequently ranged between €38–55/MWh, with upper-end outcomes common during LNG-tight months.
Compared with Serbia, Greece was often more expensive during stress periods, but sometimes competitive during shoulder seasons. Greece’s challenge was that LNG often set the marginal price, embedding global volatility into local costs.
For heavy industry requiring firm, year-round supply, Greece rarely outperformed Serbia on a consistent basis in 2025. Its advantage lay in security and flexibility, not in price minimisation.
Three heavy-industry profiles: Annual cost impact in €/MWh
To translate these corridors into real economics, consider three representative industrial gas users.
A continuous-process plant consuming 1,000,000 MWh/year would experience the following typical outcomes in 2025:
In Serbia at €38–42/MWh, annual gas cost would be €38–42 million.
In Hungary, outcomes ranged from €35–45 million depending on procurement quality.
In Romania, outcomes ranged from €32–55 million, reflecting high dispersion.
In Bulgaria, costs typically fell between €37–48 million.
In Croatia, costs ranged from €34–47 million.
In Greece, costs often exceeded €40–55 million.
A seasonal industrial user consuming 500,000 MWh/year with winter-heavy demand faced higher sensitivity to flexibility pricing. A €5/MWh difference in winter firmness translated into €2.5 million per year, often making Serbia competitive versus more volatile neighbours despite slightly higher annual averages.
A CHP operator needed to evaluate gas cost relative to electricity capture. In Serbia, stable gas pricing often supported predictable CHP margins. In hub-exposed markets, gas volatility could erase CHP economics unless electricity prices rose in parallel.
Structural ranking for 2025 (delivered €/MWh, heavy industry)
On a risk-adjusted basis, Serbia in 2025 ranked:
More competitive than Romania (typical buyers), Greece, North Macedonia and Montenegro.
Comparable to Bulgaria and Croatia on an annual average.
Slightly less competitive than best-case Hungary and best-case Romania, but with lower downside risk.
Serbia’s strength was price stability. Its weakness was limited downside participation.
Strategic implication
For heavy industry, Serbia in 2025 was not the cheapest gas market in South-East Europe. It was one of the most predictable. For capital-intensive plants where gas cost volatility directly affects EBITDA stability, that predictability had real value. For traders, merchant CHP operators and buyers seeking to actively arbitrage markets, Serbia’s structure was less attractive.
The long-term competitiveness question for Serbia is therefore not whether gas prices are “high” or “low,” but whether optionality can be increased without destroying stability. Even a €3–5/MWh reduction through improved diversification and indexation would translate into €3–5 million per year for a single large industrial plant—enough to influence investment decisions.
Elevated by virtu.energy