Energy Minister Zhecho Stankov has firmly criticized the 2022 agreement between state-owned Bulgargaz and Turkish company Botas, arguing that there was no objective reason to enter into such a deal. In an interview with BNT, Stankov stated that at the time of signing, Bulgaria’s domestic gas needs were already fully covered. According to him, Bulgargaz had a clear picture of the country’s annual consumption, which stood at 25 units of gas. Of these, 10 were secured through a long-term agreement with Azerbaijan, and another 10 were ensured via long-term contracts with Greek suppliers, which had the capacity to deliver up to 15 units. Additionally, Bulgaria had four more units stored in underground reserves, and caretaker governments had arranged deliveries from Gazprom. “There was simply no need for any additional contract,” Stankov said.

He added that the Botas agreement triggered 8,000 transactions on the stock exchange, 7,000 of which resulted in losses for Bulgargaz. With an oversupply of gas, much of it coming from Russian companies, prices dropped significantly. Gas purchased at higher prices through the Botas contract was resold in Greece at roughly half the cost, effectively subsidizing the Greek market, Stankov argued.

The minister said the financial state of Bulgargaz had deteriorated significantly. “We left the company without any debt; now it's burdened with over 1.8 billion leva,” he noted. According to him, the Botas contract was rarely utilized and yielded poor returns. Since its signing, it has been used only twice, while taxpayers pay over 1 million leva per day for the unused transit capacity. Stankov highlighted that in one year alone, 400 million leva was spent for just 13% usage of the paid capacity. He blamed this contract for significantly inflating heating prices and increasing the cost of goods and services across the board.

Stankov also addressed criticism suggesting the contract is profitable but underused. He dismissed those claims, saying that even if Bulgaria utilized the full volume, the infrastructure limitations would prevent effective delivery. He described the arrangement as a bad investment: “We paid for a TIR vehicle vignette to use a highway where only a van can drive.” The inflated transit cost through Botas reportedly raises the price of Bulgarian gas by over 30%. The government is now attempting to take advantage of market fluctuations to offset these effects.

On the regional context, Stankov stated that foreign companies find importing gas through Greek terminals to be significantly cheaper, about two and a half times less costly than via Botas. According to him, Bulgarian citizens are already well aware of the financial damage inflicted by the deal. He also criticized the lack of transparency, saying the contract contains no exit clause and stipulates enormous penalties for early termination.

President Radev had mentioned the existence of more favorable terms at the time, but Stankov countered that if better offers existed, they were never pursued. Instead, a damaging deal was signed, one that has already led to a 550-million-lev debt owed to the Turkish side. Stankov warned that the state-owned Bulgargaz has lost half of its market share and is now saddled with nearly 1.9 billion leva in liabilities.

He emphasized that the only real solution would be to terminate the agreement. Recent talks were held after Boyko Borissov’s visit to Turkey and his meeting with President Erdogan. These led to renewed bilateral discussions, and a delegation from Botas was recently in Sofia. According to Stankov, negotiations can only occur once, and the government is seeking the best possible outcome within that window.

Regarding investigations into the roles of former ministers Rosen Hristov and Denitsa Zlateva in the signing of the Botas deal, Stankov confirmed that he has instructed the Ministry of Energy to cooperate with authorities fully. Investigators have already spent hours collecting documentation containing references to the contract. There are concerns that the agreement was presented for signing without proper negotiation and that it bears the signature of a current cabinet minister.