The First LNG Terminal in Bulgaria

The First LNG Terminal in Bulgaria

The First LNG Terminal in Bulgaria

ROITI’s Interview with Bulmarket

Bulmarket is a Bulgarian company, founded 26 years ago in the town of Ruse. Recently, ROITI interviewed Plamen Paskalev who works at the Trade Department of Bulmarket.

Initially, the company traded LPG on a small scale and supplied private gas stations. Over the years the business grew to over 144 thousand tons of gas traded per year. Since then, Bulmarket has diversified into diesel, gasoline, fuel oil, CNG (compressed natural gas) and LNG (liquefied natural gas). Bulmarket has several subsidiary companies, including Astra Bio plant, which produces biodiesel and also trades it throughout Europe and Asia. Bulmarket Rail Cargo is the first private railway operator in Bulgaria, and the operator itself has smaller subsidiaries in Romania and Serbia.  City Gas is their Romanian terminal, located in the strategic town of Galati on the Danube River and the Romanian-Ukrainian-Moldovan border. Together with the rest of the team, Plamen Paskalev is currently in charge of the LPG supply and primary logistics regarding sea tankers, river barges, trains, and terminals.


What are the company’s investments in LNG?

Currently, the company has an LNG terminal in Ruse, Bulgaria, on the Danube River. Its function is to refuel river barges that use LNG as means of propulsion. It is yet to begin operation due to the absence of upstream stations.  In Ruse again, they have a small LNG station that supplies their trucks and those of several other Bulgarian companies.  The company’s LNG truck fleet consists of 3 tanks for LNG road transportation, 3 IVECO trucks for CNG and LNG, and 3 IVECO trucks for LNG exclusively.

What attracted Bulmarket to invest in LNG?

The company believes that LNG is the future for large-scale river and land vehicles, despite the recent price hikes and uncertainty. Bulmarket made their investment in LNG expecting that this is the next alternative fuel and along with their group, the company has always looked for such alternatives, one of which was LPG 26 years ago. Bulmarket’s truck fleet has already paid out and they expect the return on investment from the terminal as soon as more upstream terminals are built, for example in Croatia or Serbia.

What are the main challenges with the LNG market development for trucks and barges?

The company has identified two main challenges. The first one is the lack of reliable LNG supplies nearby. Until last year Bulmarket used to purchase LNG from Turkey, but due to the high demand in the Turkish internal market, this was discontinued in 2022. For the past two years, they have also bought LNG from Belgium, but the logistics costs made the price non-competitive with LPG and fuel oil for industrial clients, and diesel for trucks.

The second challenge is the outdated Bulgarian LNG regulations. Long story short, it is easier to buy and import LNG from Turkey or other non-EU countries than to deliver it from Belgium, even though Belgium and Bulgaria are both a part of the EU. The company has made inquiries about updating the laws and regulations, but they have been unsuccessful so far. Perhaps the current world situation may have this small positive side effect.

What are the next steps and the outlook for the business?

Bulmarket is currently building a new larger LNG station because its old one is about to reach its capacity limit. They have started to further diversify into solar energy. Last year they created a new private railway operator in Romania and this year there is one planned in Serbia. In 2021, they purchased an old and delipidated locomotive repair workshop and are in the process of rebuilding it from the ground up. It will serve Bulmarket’s locomotives and wagons as well as external clients.

Getting the IT Landscape to Make LNG Feel Comfortable

Getting the IT Landscape to Make LNG Feel Comfortable

Getting the IT Landscape to Make LNG Feel Comfortable

As LNG trading volumes and value rise, traders increasingly face the need to integrate it better into their core ETRM landscape. Higher visibility of the marк-to-market and mark-to-intent, as well as diversion decisions impact on valuation and cost, are just parts of the reasons the real-world needs to be better integrated into the software.

To make things more fun, LNG combines features of both flow and bulk commodities throughout its lifecycle, so any integration needs to take this into account and reconcile the complexities of both. Capturing the unload-to-regasification processes can be a particularly complex scenario, although there is an increasing move toward bundle pricing. This, however, is compensated by the market need for flexibility in service offerings and enabling services like transhipment, storage, and reloading. Reloads have become increasingly popular in the last years and a study on gas market upgrading and modernization presented in the Madrid Forum 2019 shows the key terminal flexibility factors that make them attractive (Van Nuffel, L. 2019. Study on gas market upgrading and modernisation – Regulatory framework for LNG terminals Preliminary findings, p. 4. Madrid Forum. Trinomics).

Source: Study on gas market upgrading and modernisation – Regulatory framework for LNG terminals, Preliminary findings, 2019

Overall, integration into an ETRM landscape poses several key challenges:

  • Capturing the cost complexity of the unload to regasification steps – there is s different pricing logic between terminals and between the different steps in the process – e.g. unloading may be per unit, but storage per the maximum used capacity in a day.
  • Modelling correctly the mark to intent value and the implied optionality in a market situation where Europe competes with Asia for LNG shipments. This is not a new or an LNG specific problem, but historically it has been under-addressed.
  • Modelling correctly the state transitions from a liquid into a gas with the accompanying losses and lead time to get the gas into the pipelines. UoM and currency conversions are among the known challenges, but some gas systems have the additional complexity of an implied MWh to cm conversion resulting in MWh GCV and MWh NCV measures and prices which provides a proper headache while comprehending.

The list is not exhaustive but contains in our view the key deal breakers when modelling LNG and integrating it with the more special-purpose systems around it.

To address those, market players need a reliable implementation and integration partner. ROITI aspires to be such and after we have solved gas in Europe, we are looking for a good complex LNG problem to solve.

Got one?




The EU energy transition created situations of deadweight, and this could not be any truer in 2021. The transition was initially triggered by the vulnerability of the RES in the EU primary energy sources. Мeanwhile the gas supplies were disrupted and the storage levels were critically low at the beginning of the cold season. The natural gas price skyrocketed and caused spill-over effects on electricity. Interestingly, no other key energy commodities underwent the same stress. The crude oil price, on the other hand, did not follow the same price momentum.

Тhe energy sector, and more noticeably the gas sector in 2021, were marked by a recovering demand, but still a low output with tighter-than-expected production. It turned out that demand recuperated faster than supply. Producers who were experiencing downturns could hardly catch up amid the largest EU price jumps in decades. The anticipated COP26 came to a close, making its mark through the Global Methane pledge and determination for fossil fuels abatement, although all this ended up with a phase-down rather than a phase-out.


>> Jul 2021 — The European Commission released the largest Climate law package Fit for 55 on its ambitious way towards GHG emission reduction. Тhe maritime sector would be included in the scope of EU ETS scope from 2023 onwards.

>> Sep 10th — The $11 billion Nord Stream 2 saga was near an end. EPC was finalized with just an admission certification remaining to be issued.

>> Oct 1st — Consolidation of the largest gas market in Europe, Germany, under the THE (Trading Hub Europe), after converging NetConnect and Gaspool market zones.

>> Based on the TTF historical data, the natural gas average close price, used as a standard benchmark price for performance, was around 46.16€/MW throughout the year 2021, as opposed to 10.46€/MW throughout 2020. The price briefly jumped to 180.27 €/MW in December. Compared to the highest corresponding cost of 21.70 €/MW in 2020the new one accounted for a nine-fold increase.

>> Oct — Nov — COP26 took place. Hydrogen was officially earmarked as the climate silver bullet for decarbonization and was promoted as such.

>> Gas prices in the EU followed a W-shaped recovery (double-dip recession). This can be attributed to the COVID-19 waves and in Q2 2021 it retained the price level from Q3–2018 at 25€/MW. Despite its expansion and price momentum stemming from the supply shortage and recalling the Beast-from-the-East-scenario, gas is not a true proxy for the economy. The steep and rapid surge in the second half of 2021 was an impulse rather than an accurate representation of the economic growth.

>> Dec 8th — EU Carbon emissions hit the highest price since the foundation of EU ETS— 89.47 €/t as opposed to 33.55 €/t at the corresponding time the previous year, which marks a triple jump on a YOY basis.

>> Dec 31st — As a consequence of the EU primary energy sources strategy, there was an increasing share of intermittent non-dispatchable energy sources. This led to decreasing conventional flexibility with the Nuclear plants decommissioning. The last German nuclear capacities will be phased out at the end of 2022. After abating nuclear energy, the coal plants will remain in function until 2038.

>> Dec — The tightness in the gas supply had a detrimental effect on the clean spark spreads and resulted in ramping up the electricity wholesale prices. It further aggravated the high price by including the carbon-intensive coal electricity and pricey carbon emission allowances, thus breaking a record, hovering around 400€/MW in the EU

>> Q4 of 2021 — The price differential between natural gas and crude oil got larger. Widened inter-commodity spread could boost oil demand. By convention, the natural gas commodity is priced below crude oil. Regarding the inter-commodity spread (Brent; TTF) in 2021, the two price curves intersected at the end of Q3 202, when natural gas reached $100/bl, while Brent anchored at $71.59/bl. This represents a price anomaly. In Q4 2021 this deviation gets even more pronounced with TTF following its upward trend and crude oil (Brent) tending to decrease. We can conclude that at the end of 2021, natural gas was more expensive than crude oil, which may incent consumers to switch to oil alternatives.

>> 2021 — Coal-fired electricity was set to rise. The increased electricity demand resulted in coal-fired electricity generation growth and an all-time peak of 6% in 2021. This was another example of why electrification must not be performed before fully developing the RES. Lack of sufficient base-load energy sources and decommissioning the existing ones, such as nuclear plants, appears to be the right recipe for the comeback of coal.


2021 will be remembered with the largest global electricity demand and by the predominant use of gas and coal plants, along with the largest progress coal-fired power has seen recently. The key role of natural gas for the EU gross electricity production triggered a domino effect of surging wholesale prices for electricity. The prices were exacerbated by the coal-firing power plants and carbon emission allowances.

The year reaffirmed the main LNG arbitrage route, bringing the imports into a tug-of-war situation between the Pacific and Europe with a strong positive linear relationship, at a correlation of 0.93. With South America recently included, the EU would have to deal with the challenge to lure more LNG supplies, unless it comes up with a long-term solution.

Migrating SQL to NoSQL

Migrating SQL to NoSQL

Migrating SQL to NoSQL

Photo by fabio on Unsplash

As businesses grow, and the amount of data increases, software developers are faced with a challenging problem — how to store and process more data without losing performance?

The idea that traditional databases are no longer viable for some business cases has dawned upon many. Significant changes are required to maintain the needed capabilities of systems that used to be applicable but have suddenly lost the ability to handle the same processes on time.

And so, we are starting to see a natural shift towards more optimal technologies — the so-called NoSQL databases — designed specifically to handle certain tasks with greater proficiency. Although many would argue that NoSQL DBs limit users greatly in their functionality, the idea to sacrifice some flexibility for performance is the desired effect, not a drawback.

There are several considerations on whether to migrate to NoSQL:

– Pricing

– Performance

– Scalability

– Data complexity

– Development time

– Business needs

Understanding which of these we can sacrifice, and which are critical for our system, will determine whether NoSQL is needed, and in what way.

· Deciding on a DB

Of course, less functionality means that we need to know which database to utilize in a specific scenario. If our business case suggests looking up a value based on an index, we would use a Key-Value DB. If we need complex objects with nested data, perhaps a Document database would be appropriate. Analyzing the relational properties between objects would infer a Graph database. In fact, there are dozens of different database types, that supply optimizations to specific functionality.

· The drawbacks

Does that mean that if I choose a NoSQL DB, I’ll lose my ability to use relationships, or things such as transactions or stored procedures?

Depending on our choices, we may end up losing important functionality. Some DBs provide support for several of the features we would normally find in an RDBMS. However, they are not optimized to work in a way that makes these options efficient. Let’s take MongoDB for example — it would be much faster to read and write documents to Mongo than to MSSQL. Our storage requirements would be less. Searching for data within the document would be much faster. And we could still create relations between documents by key. But executing complex queries that need to build those relations would result in much slower performance than it would in a relational database.

But then what if we require multiple efficient features from our database? How do we choose a single one?

Well, we don’t necessarily have to. In a case where the requirements are to find certain text within a document and then detect all related stats to those documents, we could use one DB to manage our data search needs to find the text, and another DB to satisfy our stat aggregation needs.

So, does that mean that the complexity of the system is greatly increased?

Not at all. While the infrastructure may need some adjustment to meet the new requirements, our code can remain relatively simple. We just need to start thinking a bit differently and model our data in ways that are more suitable to such an approach.

No more stored procedures, no more ACID, no more transactions, no more guarantees for data with missing relations. How could we possibly expect our data to be consistent and correct? How can we safely manipulate our data?

Everything we’re missing can be managed by our backend in the way we want it — it may be more work, but it also gives us much greater control to execute everything we want exactly the way we want it. We may need to sacrifice more development time to ensure we get the performance benefits of NoSQL DBs. But that mindset comes from a certain complacency — SQL DBs had it all, which meant we didn’t have to do all the extra coding before, therefore we are now wasting time doing it. We still have to do the work in SQL — design schemas, adjust for data types, decide on foreign keys, configure relationships, create stored procedures, account for rollbacks, table locks, dirty reads, erroneous writes, non-unique hashes, and many, many more.

We are not sacrificing that much to be unable to get back in a few lines of code. Throwing away many of the above will result in easier development, and new ways to think about our data.

· Schemas — redesign or start from scratch

Migrating to NoSQL means adjusting not just the functionality of our system, but more importantly — the way the data itself is structured.

And this may come as a surprise to some, however, in NoSQL, we don’t need a schema. We don’t need strict rules to store our data. We don’t need constraints or even tables. There is no requirement to structure data. That doesn’t mean we cannot use these methods. Only that we are not forced to.

That leaves the only obstacle in the migration — how was the old model implemented?

In any case, the schema will require alterations — my advice is to completely rewrite everything to fit the new technology. However, if you’re limited on resources and your old implementation allows for it, you can keep old business logic, and only rewrite some parts of your data transformation processes, and even get away with unoptimized models and a vanilla NoSQL configuration.

However, we still need to migrate the data.


Fortunately, many NoSQL DBs support dedicated migration tools. There are ways to migrate schemas into a contextual structure in some DBs. Tables can be converted into collections. Records can be made into objects, arrays, even complex structures that were previously unavailable.

With the proper tool and a compatible design on the old DB, migrating from SQL to NoSQL could even be a pleasant endeavour. Tools that are sophisticated enough will automatically build all required structures, and transfer all data straight into the new solution, without much more than the press of a button.

Relational databases, which have a more complex model, however, will require some manual power.

That’s where tools, such as Object Mappers come in. By utilizing a Relational Mapper, we can programmatically extract the data from the RDB and transform it into the desired object, that will fit the model. Then, if we were to use a document database as the new destination, a Document Mapper can help us adjust to fit the document DB’s requirements and insert the new object.

Object Mappers enable us to connect to the databases, create the methods we need to: extract the data from the source, transform it so it meets our new model requirements, and load the data into our new solution.

· Making up for missing RDBMS features

There are many factors to consider when migrating to NoSQL, which stem, not just from missing functionality, but from the complete overhaul in the way we think about data in a non-relational, non-ACID way.

The way relationships are implemented in NoSQL databases results in some side effects. When migrating data, a strategy needs to be put in place to identify and handle cases where data may become incomplete or inconsistent. Orphan records, missing data, missing record identity — these are all issues that were taken care of by default in older implementations.

The biggest concern to developers is perhaps the lack of an ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) transactional process. This is indeed the tricky part and the thing that requires the greatest amount of consideration, development time, and code. Keep in mind that to be able to replicate this behaviour, we may need to drastically alter our system.

NoSQL DBs rely on eventual consistency, meaning that data may not be immediately available or correct whenever a process completes. It will only be complete at an unknown time. Therefore, we have no way of knowing whether some data is consistent with the processes we’ve executed on it just by looking at it. This can be overcome by designing code to emulate a transactional process, or by adjusting the system’s architecture to make it event-based to keep track of when and if data is updated. Of course, all these need to be considered before starting the database implementation.

Luckily, some features can be replicated or can exist out-of-the-box (although they are not strictly enforced). Data types, indexes, data structures, security features — can increase productivity and consistency greatly, even if they no longer look the same.

In the end, losing even a few milliseconds on a query may cascade into significant losses down the line. NoSQL DBs give great options in vast areas of data management and should definitely be considered when facing expanding system requirements.

German LNG – Just Around the Corner

German LNG – Just Around the Corner

German LNG – Just Around the Corner

Germany is not only the EU’s largest gas consumer but is also a large gas transit state. As of 2019, 27% of the gas imports into Europe (80 million tons LNG) came through LNG processing. There are reasonable grounds to expand the LNG industry further. Germany provides a favourable environment for the gas sector, and it is estimated that between 10 billion cubic meters and 22 billion cubic meters of additional LNG import capacity could be added.

Photo by Jacob Meissner on Unsplash

Diversifying the delivery routes for natural gas would be necessary to progressively shut down the familiar to the German energy balance between nuclear hard coal and lignite power generation. The LNG facilities will be the frontrunner of improving competition in gas supply and security. An additional aspect would be environmental sustainability. Germany’s natural gas consumption exceeds 25% of the total EU gas demand, and less emission-intensive LNG would be a good opportunity and an additional entry point. On account of this, the projected terminals in Germany would be taking the lead for importing climate-neutral liquid energy sources. This would make a significant change, and the cost-efficient energy supply and the ambitious climate protection would be all put together.

The year 2021 and the upcoming winter season are expected to bring severe repercussions for the European energy sector. 80% of total imported natural gas is imported through pipelines, as opposed to roughly 20% as LNG. Therefore, due to the high dependency on pipeline gas, Europe needs more LNG terminals more than ever, particularly in Germany.

German LNG Regulatory Control

Under European and German law, an LNG terminal is subject to tariff and network access regulation. The Federal Network Agency is the independent German regulatory authority that sets tariffs and network access rules where possible for LNG facilities to be exempted if the investment improves and boosts up the competition in gas supply. The Brunsbuettel (German LNG Terminal GmbH) Terminal is on its way to achieving exemption from network access. After constructive discussions with the German regulatory authority and submitting an application for exemption from tariff regulation under section 28a of the German Energy Industry Act (EnWG), the German LNG Terminal GmbH has received the draft exemption decision from the Bundesnetzagentur. German LNG Terminal GmbH is exempted from the network access and tariff regulation, applicable for up to 8 billion cubic meters per annum only, where it will be in force for 25 years.

German LNG Projects

Germany’s ‘road map’ for LNG import terminals directs its attention to (Brunsbüttel) Hamburg, Wilhelmshaven, and Stade. Going through the COVID-19 waves, the entrepreneurial spirit within all sectors has been blindsided, and the LNG industry has been no exception. The LNG projects in Germany have also been delayed.

LNG Hamburg Terminal

The construction site of the Terminal is in Brunsbüttel, in the greater industrial and economic zone of Hamburg. It is considered the most promising among all proposed projects in Germany (Brunsbüttel, Wilhelmshaven, Stade, Rostock), especially after the cancellation of LNG Wilhelmshaven, which unequivocally will make Brunsbüttel even more appealing to suppliers. In addition, the Terminal will step up for taking a major role in the logistic chain for the LNG supply for bunkering LNG ships in Hamburg.

Due to the pandemical situation, the expected start-up has been put off from the end of 2022 to the second half of 2024 the earliest to be fully operational. As of this date, the development has reached a milestone by applying for planning permission.

Key figures

The send-out LNG capacity could reach over 8 billion cubic meters per annum with an unloading rate of 14 000 cubic meters per hour and a loading rate of 2500 cubic meters per hour. The facility is also expected to give out storage for 330 thousand cubic meters of LNG. On top of this, there will be two berthing facilities designed to fit even LNG carriers with the size of the Q-Max. As per the provided information, the LNG shipping companies will be able to discharge their cargo on trucks, cryogenic rail tank cars or other smaller ships.

The favourable geographical proximity to the nearby port of Hamburg as well as the industrial companies located in the region offers an attractive business environment, where the Scandinavian countries and the Baltic States can be easily reached via the Kiel canal.

The shareholders in the joint venture behind the Terminal (i.e., German LNG GmbH) are Oiltanking GmbH, N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and Koninklijke Vopak N.V. The aim of the joint venture is namely to work on building a multifunctional import and distribution terminal for liquefied natural gas.

Тhroughout the feasibility study for the Terminal, MOU with external stakeholders have been signed and several other market players are about to. This also marks out the most apparent advantage of the Brunsbüttel Terminal in comparison to others.

The capacity contract between the Terminal and RWE getting hold of a considerable part of the terminal’s capacity (5 BCM) on a long-term basis is a typical example. The LNG supply deal was signed as well, where Woodside Energy will secure the firm LNG supplies to the regasification plant.

Some of the main functions include span across berthing/unloading, LNG loading onto trucks or rail tank cars, temporary storage, regasification, and transmission.

In the end, Brunsbüttel should be taken very seriously not only because of its ample regasification capacity, but equally importantly, because of its envisaged major role as the port for the highly desirable hydrogen.

Stade LNG Terminal

The Hanseatic complex is conveniently located at the Elbe River, with access to the North Sea and the Port of Hamburg. The planned annual capacity for 12 BCM per annum makes it the largest LNG plant under consideration in northern Germany.

The expected start-up is planned to take place in 2026, where the investment cost for building this Terminal would be around US$567 million.

Hanseatic Energy Hub GmbH is behind the project and is responsible for its development, planning, construction, financing likewise the operation of the Terminal.

Key figures

The optimal send-out capacity could reach over 12 billion cubic meters, the containment system consists of two tanks with a total volume of nearly 500 thousand cubic meters of LNG. Similar to Brunsbüttel Terminal, the distribution facilities here would be ready to use rail tank cars, barges and trucks.

Throughout the feasibility study for the Terminal, Hanseatic Energy Hub(HEH) started an industrial partnership with Dow Chemical and Fluxys, together with Buss Group and Switzerland’s Partners Group. What distinguishes this plant from the others is that, by using the waste heat from the Dow’s chemical processes used for the further regasification and thus reducing the CO2 emissions during the LNG processes.

Another door could have been opened to the low-carbon LNG supply chain attained through the partnership with GNL Quebec (Liquefaction facility in Canada) and making a clear path for alternative lower-emission fuels to reach Germany. Unfortunately, the LNG facility in Canada did not get approval and as of this day is cancelled.

The provided terminal services(logistics via rail, road, small LNG ships and barges) will turn the Hanseatic Terminal into a major LNG distribution hub.

Photos by Yulia Buchatskaya and Patrick Rosenkranz on Unsplash
Rostock LNG Terminal

Among the proposed LNG Terminals, there was an opportunity for a small-scale LNG project in the port of Rostock, Germany. The joint venture behind the construction of the Terminal was 49% and 51%, Novatek and Fluxys respectively. The main concept for this Terminal is namely to fill a specific market niche and having in use entirely Russian gas.

This project has been abandoned at the very first phase, surprisingly it is not due to the lack of interest, it was rather the opposite, a ‘constructive support’ was shown from the stakeholders.

Perhaps, an explanation would make sense in the hard times for the Energy industry, as a result of the heavily impacted market powers by the Covid spread.

Wilhelmshaven LNG Terminal

The second site where the project will not be brought to a close is Wilhelmshaven port. LTeW GmbH — a fully-owned subsidiary of Uniper is in control of the project development. The FSRU only will be owned and operated by the company — Mitsui Lines. The estimated cost of the entire project is $725 million.

Here, the crucial factors for abandoning this project appear to be the lack of interest in the long run along with the climate issues and the more desirable ‘green molecule’. According to Uniper’ s Corporate spokesperson — Georg Oppermann, they switched their focus to hydrogen, in a way that ‘Wilhelmshaven LNG’ turns into ‘Green Wilhelmshaven’ to act as a central hub for climate-friendly hydrogen. In the matter of the Project lifecycle, they are currently right in the middle of the feasibility study. Ideally, there will be an ‘ammonia cracker’ installed to have production capacity for ‘green’ hydrogen bolstered by a 410 MW electrolysis plant, so that in the end Uniper could contribute to a common European hydrogen market.

With the preparation for the COP26 at Glasgow and with the new goals for energy transition, the EU’s strongest economy and the fourth-largest one globally, the German one, is adapting its energy pathway to the net-zero Paris agreement objectives. Heavy investments in weather-dependent RES are out. The country remains reliant on Russian pipeline gas supplies with its energy stripped out of its nuclear power and still without any LNG terminals. All this exposes German energy security at a risk. Any turbulence on the gas market will prove how sustainable the long-term energy policy is, whereupon strong headwinds might lead to diverting Germany’s current course.


1. Liquefied Natural Gas In Germany 2020, accessed 4 October 2021, <>.

2. Global Natgas Prices Surge Looms For United States This Winter 2021, accessed 4 October 2021, <>

3. Germany’s First LNG Terminal s The Right Move For Europe’s Energy Security 2018, accessed 4 October 2021, <>

4. Das LNG-Terminal in Stade, accessed 4 October 2021, <>

5. German LNG Terminal, accessed October 2021, <>

6. Uniper Plans to Make Wilhelmshaven a Hub for Climate-friendly Hydrogen 2021, accessed 4 October 2021, <>

7. NOVATEK and Fluxys Plan to Build an LNG Terminal in Rostock 2018, accessed 4 October 2021, <>

(Visited 145 times)

German Gas Market Area Merger in IT Terms

German Gas Market Area Merger in IT Terms

Press Release

ROITI’s contribution to handling the Trading Hub Europe (THE) transition for a major gas player in Germany

Sofia, Bulgaria, Wednesday 6th of October

We at ROITI Ltd. are happy to announce that together with customers and partners we have managed to handle the merger of Gaspool and NCG into Trading Hub Europe (THE) for one of our Germany-based customers with a large gas portfolio – EWE Trading. The IT landscape is Endur-centric and the merger had to be managed in two versions of Endur simultaneously, as it happened just before a Greenfield re-implementation of the ETRM system.

The project team managed to handle various complexities, including updating static data on different levels to ensure portfolio management and scheduling works, the adaptation of reporting, adding functionality across the board, which could handle both worlds – the  Gaspool/NCG one, and the THE one. Furthermore, we adjusted deals to new delivery and pricing structures and integrated new zonal products (introduced through ECC) into the existing deal flow.

“The project, which was handled by renaming NCG in several places, posed some challenges related to the specifics of Endur and many decisions around the handling of two histories and one future had to be made on different deals. Ultimately, in close cooperation with affected business parties we found a working solution to enable a minimally disruptive transition throughout the IT landscape, which was key in the current period of very high price volatility”, said Ventsislav Topuzov, CEO of ROITI.

“Gar nicht so mal schlecht”, said Dr. Sven Orlowski, CEO of EWE Trading in the final preparations for the go-live. “ROITI is a valued partner and helped us deal with THE within an outdated implementation of Endur and synchronise all changes to a new instance, redesigned from scratch. The business transition went with minimal disruptions, and they were handled efficiently.”

We want to thank our customers for their trust, as well as the teammates we worked with from different companies. Now, we are off to meet the next market structure changes and are setting our eyes on the LNG growth and its impact on the IT landscape. We look forward to seeing when the DLS will be stopped and how this will disrupt the existing solutions.


ROITI Ltd. was founded in 2013 and has had experience with eight satisfied clients so far. We are a full-service technology advisory focused on clients within the energy trading sector on their journey to digitalization. We design, develop, and maintain IT solutions throughout the entire wholesale and retail value chain, and we offer ETRM system integration and enhancement services, cloud migrations, and the development of data warehouse solutions. 

For more information please contact:

Hristina Tankovska

Marketing & Business Development at Roiti Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria