97 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE References Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493– 505. doi: 10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 Accelerate Climate Action Network Europe. (2024). Mind the NECP gap. Aceris Law. (2025, January 25). Investment arbitration and the never-ending MOL v. Croatia saga. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Barrage, L., & Hémous, D. (2023). Climate change, directed innovation, and energy transition: The long-run consequences of the shale gas revolution (NBER Working Paper No. 31657). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.2286/w31657 Austvik, O. G. (2016). The Energy Union and security-of-gas supply. Energy Policy, 96, 372–382. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.013 China-CEE Institute. (2025, July 30). Croatia monthly briefing: U.S.-Croatia LNG ties, Krk terminal expansion, and transatlantic energy security. Clean Air Task Force & Greenpeace. (2025, April). [Key findings: CATF field survey of methane emissions from Croatian oil and gas infrastructure] [Fact sheet]. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-croatia-stateless/2025/04/7500d18f-key-findings-catf-croatia.pdf Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency. (2024). Summary of the annual report 2024. Donald Trump answers a Supreme Court rebuke with new tariff threats. (2026, February 20). The Economist. Eko Kvarner predstavio kontrastudiju za projekt plutajućeg LNG terminala [Eko Kvarner presented a counter-study for the floating LNG terminal project]. (2017, December 28). Civilnodruštvo.hr. EKONERG. (2018). Environmental impact assessment study for the modification of the receiving LNG terminal project on the island of Krk by introducing the phase of the floating terminal for reception, storage and regasification of LNG (Work order I-03-0346). European Commission. (n.d.-a). Environmental impact assessment. European Commission. (n.d.-b). Key cross-border infrastructure projects. European Commission. (2019). State aid: Commission approves public support for Croatian LNG terminal at Krk island. Eurostat. (2026). Energy statistics. European Commission. Fabian, E. (2025, December 23). Croatia’s LNG pipelines set to transform energy landscape. CEE Energy News. Greenpeace Croatia. (2025, April 4). Zagađenje metanom prisutno diljem Hrvatske, otkriva neovisno istraživanje [Methane pollution present throughout Croatia, independent research reveals] [Press release]. Gulan, K., & Kelava, M. (2025, September 19). CLEW guide — Croatia caught between LNG ambitions and abundant untapped renewable energy potential. Clean Energy Wire. Harper, J. (2018, December 3). Gas reheats Croatia's geopolitical dilemma. Deutsche Welle. Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Should fracking stop? Nature, 477, 271–275. doi: 10.1038/477271a Ilic, I. (2010, December 21). Croatia firm urges alternative as Adria LNG on hold. Reuters. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. (2025, October). European LNG tracker. International Trade Administration. (2025, August 20). Croatia—Energy. U.S. Department of Commerce. The Iran war is forcing Europe to confront its energy problem. (2026b, March 19). The Economist. Jaeger, J. (2023, July 12). These 8 countries are scaling up renewable energy the fastest. World Resources Institute. Jenner, S., & Lamadrid, A. J. (2013). Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. Energy Policy, 53, 442– 453. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010 Jensen, L., & Meinardi, C. (2025). Croatia’s climate action strategy (Members’ research service 769.561). European Parliamentary Research Service. Jugé, M., McWilliams, B. & Zachmann, G. (2026, March 13). European natural gas demand tracker. Bruegel. Karasalihović Sedlar, D., Smajla, I., Blažević, M., & Šoštarko, I. (2023). Influence of LNG supply on gas market flexibility: Croatia case study. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 60, 103480. doi: 10.1016/j. seta.2023.103480 planning now shores against stranded asset risk without abandoning the energy hub ambition. The energy trilemma is not resolvable by optimizing for any one vertex. Croatia must diversify its LNG import portfolio beyond American suppliers and continue reducing residual oil and coal dependencies. Given that fossil fuel price volatility shows no sign of abating, the long-run cost of renewables becomes more competitive with each geopolitical disruption in fossil-exporting nations (Stelzenmüller & Gross, 2024). The Krk terminal, its chaotic origins and unresolved contradictions, and Croatia’s LNG strategy are a microcosm of the incompleteness of the national energy strategy surrounding it. Croatia has built the infrastructure of an energy hub, but whether it builds the policy to sustain it for the future will determine if that status endures. The 99-year concession granted to LNG Hrvatska crystallizes the central tension of Croatian energy policy: The infrastructure being built today was designed for a world that European climate law is explicitly trying to end.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==