Hydrocarbon exploration contracts: Greece moves forward with its eyes fixed on the past

Moving away from hydrocarbons is a vital imperative. Not only because it is environmentally necessary, but also to achieve geopolitical stability, energy security, and sustainable economic growth. The crisis of successive conflicts over the past five years in our broader region, the political and geopolitical turmoil, and the energy insecurity caused by the fluctuations in international oil markets are now clear proof of this.

The concession agreements granting oil companies 20% of Greece’s maritime territory is a deeply concerning and problematic situation that plunges the country into long-term dependence on fossil fuels, which, in the face of a steadily worsening climate crisis, should be a thing of the past.

The Ionian and Cretan seas are characterized by clear waters and marine ecosystems of exceptional importance, which have survived precisely because of the absence of polluting activities, such as hydrocarbon extraction.

In their statement during the hearing of non-parliamentary organizations held the day before yesterday by the Committe on Production and Trade  in the Hellenic Parliament, WWF Greece representatives highlighted the following points regarding contracts with oil companies, which are being ratified by a bill being voted on today in Parliament. WWF Greece’s concerns regarding these contracts were also highlighted in a related memo sent to members of the Hellenic Parliament last week. Specifically, the following points are raised:

•     Insignificant financial revenue: Contrary to claims of supposedly significant financial benefits, the contracts guarantee only meager revenue for the Greek government. Therefore, the narrative regarding revenue from subsequent phases is completely unfounded, as the only certain revenue is that which is exclusively linked to the first phase of the research. Upon signing the contracts, the state will receive a meager total amount of approximately 3,500,000 euros. So all of this is essentially being done for an amount less than the value of an apartment in an expensive neighborhood of Athens. At the same time, rents, as well as taxes (including the planned 5% regional tax), are contingent upon the profitability (taxable income) of the local subsidiaries of the oil companies. By comparison, renewable energy sources correctly pay the “special levy” directly to local authorities based on energy production (per megawatt-hour of electricity generated), whereas oil companies pay only if they report profits. This constitutes clearly favorable treatment in favor of the fossil fuel industry. A table showing the projected revenues from all contracts is included in the aforementioned briefing note sent to members of parliament (March 4, 2026).
• Oil, not gas, and certainly not owned by the country: It is often claimed that the contracts will ensure the country’s supply of natural gas, which is promoted as the so-called “transition fuel” for climate change. This is not true. On the contrary, the contracts favor the extraction of crude oil. Gas extraction depends exclusively on the lessee company (Art. 2.3.(b)(i)). Any gas extraction is explicitly stated in the contracts to require the development of additional infrastructure, which will reduce the profitability of the oil companies and, consequently, revenue for the Greek government, as royalty payments are contingent upon profitability. In any case, the hydrocarbons produced are the property of the co-lessees, who may dispose of them as they see fit (Art. 13.6).
• Extremely low environmental safeguards: In all relevant provisions, the contracts are characterized by an unacceptably low level of environmental safeguards. It is extremely concerning that there is no indication anywhere that the strategic environmental impact assessment required by EU law was conducted for any concession area, with the exception of the Southern Peloponnese. This means that no one has examined the serious impacts expected in the Ionian Sea and the waters off Crete, and that citizens in the areas of Southern Crete 1 and 2 and A2 were not given the right to participate in the process (a relevant inquiry has already been sent to the competent authorities). Equally problematic is the issue of environmental damage restoration. The extent to which the damage will be restored depends on an initial report on the state of the area, which, however, is drafted exclusively by the mining company itself, and the competent authority is required to approve it through a rapid and non-transparent process, without the participation of the public or experts (Article 12.14).
• Inspections upon notification: In Article 19.13, the contracts undermine the ability of the competent inspection authorities to conduct timely and effective inspections, as prior written notice to the lessee company is made mandatory. Consequently, inspectors are required to notify those being inspected in advance of when they will conduct an inspection.
• Risks and accidents: Oil and gas extraction is one of the most dangerous industrial activities for nature and people. And this is not only true for distant continents, but is also a reality in Europe. For example, the briefing note to MEPs lists major accidents from recent years. Based on an analysis of all EU data related to the safety of offshore drilling, we provided MEPs with a table listing accidents (incidents) in Europe over the past decade.

As Dimitris Karavellas, Director General of WWF Greece, states:

“In a world that is already experiencing, in a painful way, the consequences of dependence on fossil fuels, the Greek Parliament is ratifying new contracts and committing the country to an uncertain and unstable future. At the same time, it is completely ignoring the consequences for the climate, our seas, and our economy. A historic mistake.”