Neptun Deep is a large-scale natural gas extraction project, but also a test case for how the European Union defines its climate and energy goals and how Romania communicates its priorities on resources and security. As the EU aims to reduce energy dependency on Russia and reach climate neutrality by 2050, projects like Neptun Deep must also be assessed for their contribution to regional energy security, not just their direct climate impact. The topic deserves a nuanced conversation based on facts, not slogans.
by Eusebiu Stamate, environmental engineer and public policy analyst
Greenpeace Romania protested against Neptun Deep, denouncing the project and presenting estimates of tens of thousands of premature deaths caused by its emissions. Meanwhile, the Romanian government and OMV Petrom maintain that this is a strategic project to reduce dependence on Russian gas and strengthen Romania’s regional position.
As an environmental engineer with over ten years of professional experience, including applied research, European policy, and impact assessments at both national and international levels, I acknowledge the limitations of natural gas. It produces emissions, and its extraction and transport can harm the environment. However, in the current context, it may offer a temporary solution if operators comply with environmental standards and authorities ensure monitoring.
Gas Between Energy Realism and Climate Risks
Resource exploitation carries risks. These include direct emissions, water pollution, soil degradation, threats to biodiversity, and non-compliance with regulations. At EU level, there are clear procedures: impact assessments, environmental permits, independent monitoring, and public involvement in decision-making. The system has its flaws, but overall, it works. The bureaucratic process has been complex for many years, not just recently. For example, extending a general urban plan by only 0.5 hectares may require hundreds of pages of documentation, often including redundant or irrelevant information just to meet formal requirements, but that’s a topic for another time.
Still, such evaluations remain essential. A relevant case is the inclusion of eutrophication risk in the Neptun Deep assessment. Even if it seems improbable, its presence in the report shows that the regulatory framework demands the identification of all potential impacts. This demonstrates that environmental protection is not treated lightly but is embedded in the decision-making process. In this case, the eutrophication scenario was publicly questioned by a specialist. However, such risks are justified. Nutrients can be released from offshore materials like paints, detergents, and biocides or even from disturbed geological layers. Changes in marine currents can bring natural phosphates or nitrates to the surface, with cumulative effects. Even if these risks are low, they must be acknowledged to allow prevention. This includes proper technologies, spill control, ongoing monitoring, and habitat restoration.
While the regulatory system may seem overly complex at times, its thoroughness indicates responsibility in managing environmental impacts. Beyond its imperfections and excessive paperwork, it reflects a real concern for anticipating and preventing effects on nature and communities.
EU environmental law does not ban development. Instead, it provides the tools to ensure that environmental risks are properly assessed, mitigated and monitored. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, for example, requires a thorough evaluation of potential effects but also acknowledges that, with the right safeguards, infrastructure and industrial projects can proceed. This reflects a pragmatic approach. Development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive but must coexist within a transparent, science-based decision-making process.
The Mortality Cost of Carbon (MCC), used by Greenpeace to estimate deaths, with references to the model included in a footnote, is a scientifically recognized but theoretical model, grounded in high-end global warming scenarios. While it has academic merit, it was not designed to assess individual projects like Neptun Deep in isolation. Including it in public campaigns reflects genuine concern for climate impacts, but applying it outside of its intended context, without explaining the assumptions behind it, can mislead public understanding or exaggerate immediate risks. Public policy decisions require clarity and proportionate evidence, not symbolic figures.
What Should Be Done?
Romania can and should proceed with Neptun Deep as long as key conditions are met:
- compliance with environmental law throughout all project stages
- publication of all studies and relevant decisions
- involvement of civil society and independent experts
- implementation of technologies that reduce emissions
- commitments to use revenues to support the energy transition
- alignment with REPowerEU and the European Green Deal
Climate diplomacy goes beyond attending summits or delivering speeches on neutrality. It involves the proper implementation of European policies on energy transition, such as REPowerEU, the Governance Regulation, and the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Romania must prove through concrete actions that responsible resource extraction is compatible with the EU’s climate ambitions. It also requires the ability to integrate resources into sustainable transition plans rationally. Romania can demonstrate that extraction can be done responsibly and that it can contribute actively to European energy security.
Resource Diplomacy: A Regional Asset
Neptun Deep could become a key element of regional energy infrastructure, with direct implications for European markets. Romania is set to become the EU’s largest gas producer once production begins in 2027. With estimated reserves of 100 billion cubic meters, the project could reduce European imports and support neighboring countries like Moldova and Ukraine, reinforcing Romania’s strategic position.
Expanding partnerships with Ukraine, Moldova, and Black Sea states, within the Eastern Partnership or Global Gateway frameworks, could establish Romania as a reliable energy hub. This positioning can be used diplomatically, not as leverage, but as a foundation for regional cooperation.
Civil Society and the Right to Challenge
The recent case in which Romgaz, a state-owned company, filed a lawsuit to dissolve Greenpeace Romania raises serious concerns about freedom of expression and the right to opposition. The lawsuit followed a court ruling that rejected Greenpeace’s challenge of the onshore component of Neptun Deep and ordered the NGO to pay legal fees. This situation resonates with broader EU debates on SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which EU institutions have identified as threats to civil society.
While the state has the right to request that legal costs be paid, dissolving an NGO on these grounds seems disproportionate. NGOs must be free to protest and contest public decisions. This is part of the democratic balance.
It is true that environmental NGOs often adopt maximalist positions. They ask for a lot, hoping to get at least some of it. However, an excessive reaction from a public entity may weaken trust in the project and be perceived as an attempt to silence dissent. Public discussion must not be won by eliminating opponents but by transparency and solid arguments.
Final Reflection
The energy transition requires effort and adaptability. Sometimes, fossil fuels can play a temporary role, provided they are managed carefully and support a clear decarbonization plan. Neptun Deep should not be idealized, but it should not be demonized either. The important thing is for Romania to show that it can combine development with responsibility.
About the author:
Eusebiu Stamate (photo) is an environmental engineer and public policy analyst with experience in European institutions, research organizations, and legislative monitoring. He currently works within a Romanian policy intelligence platform, where he analyzes energy and environmental legislation relevant to both national and EU-level stakeholders. His background combines applied research, public communication, and technical evaluation of environmental and energy policies. This article was written in a personal capacity and reflects independent views.
