European natural gas imports

This dataset aggregates daily data on European natural gas import flows and storage levels.

Publishing date
21 March 2023
Gas sea platform


  • This dataset aggregates daily data on European natural gas import flows and storage levels.
  • Acute interest has developed in these indicators in response to soaring energy prices which are largely due to a tight natural gas market.
  • The behaviour of Gazprom in using (or not using) specific supply routes and storage facilities has been the focus of public attention.
  • We hope this dataset – which we will regularly update - provides some easily usable insight into the current status of European natural gas supply situation.

Last update: 21 March 2023

Warning: The ENTSO-G Transparency Platform stopped reporting the physical flows at the Greek LNG entry point “Agia Triada”. We are working to find a solution around the problem.

To download the data of the figures please use the download button in the top-left of the page. For any questions or comments, please get in contact with [email protected].

Figure 1 shows weekly extra-EU27 imports of natural gas for 2021 and 2022, compared with weekly minimum and maximum import values for the period 2015-2020. By selecting from the dropdown, the figure shows total imports but also imports exclusively from Russia, Norway, Algeria pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG, gas transported by ship from around the world), and the net imports from the UK.

The map (Figure 2) displays the most relevant pipeline import routes into the EU and the location of LNG terminals. The largest share of gas used to be delivered from Russia via four distinct corridors Nord Stream, Yamal (via Poland), Ukraine, and Turkstream (via Turkey). These different Russian gas routes are at the heart of current geopolitical tensions.

Figure 2: Main EU Natural Gas Imports routes covered in our analysis

Main EU Natural Gas imports

Source: Bruegel

Figure 3 shows weekly import data via each of these routes, again comparing to the minimum and maximum values from the period 2015-2020.

Figure 4 displays EU27 LNG monthly imports by region of origin since January 2020. While in summer 2021 natural gas imported from Russia via pipeline started to diminish, Russian LNG volumed reaching European LNG terminals have, to date, remained unaffected.


Figure 5 shows the weekly rate of regassification usage in 2022 versus the 2019-2021 average for those EU countries having operative LNG terminals. The rate of regassification capacity use may signal where supply bottlenecks are located.

Figure 6 shows actual daily imports for the last 30 days. Imports are split by Russian routes, as well as shown for Norway, Algeria, Azerbaijan, LNG and the net imports from the UK.

Alongside import volumes, the levels of storage within the EU’s borders are key for providing (or not) reassurance to markets.

In Figure 7, we provide data on current weekly levels of storage in the EU and in previously Gazprom-owned storage facilities in the EU.

In the first tab of Figure 8, we show the estimated dates by which countries’ storage levels may drop below 20 and 40 percent. In the second tab, we display the current storage level and the relative maximum storage capacity by country. In the third tab it is displayed the filling occurred in the last 30 days along the 80% target that had to be achieved by November 2022 behind the European Commission's recommendation.


We aggregate the data using the API provided by Entsog. To ensure consistency, we construct our dataset matching import flows to those provided by the IEA. We perform quality checks by comparing each import point with the IEA. We include all extra-EU trading points, apart from those with Switzerland and the Balkans.

Appendix A1 explains how we match ENTSOG points with IEA data, and then attribute these points to the exporting country/route.

For figure 4 we aggregate monthly data from Bloomberg on LNG ships docking in EU ports. Please note that the numbers might be slightly different from those in Figure 1, where we use the LNG sends-out (from the terminals/FSRUs) using ENTSO-G data. The mismatch is due to the time lag between a tanker arriving in a EU port and its LNG being regasified and dispatched to the gas grid.

For the regassification utilization rate we use APIs provided by Gas Infrastructure Europe on their ALSI website.

Gazprom storage data show the aggregated values for the storage points of Jemgum and Rehden in Germany and Haidach in Austria. These are the three EU storage facilities with a majority equity stake owned by Gazprom. Apart from these, Gazprom also has equity stakes in Damborice (in the Czech Republic) and in Etzel and Katharina (in Germany). Moreover, Gazprom also has shares of capacity at other storage points in the EU (1.9 bcm/4.1 bcm in Bergermee for example), however, in this dataset we aggregate data only coming from facilities in which Gazprom has a majority stake. The methodology changed on 15 December 2021. On August the 5th, Haidach volumes were split among 3 Storage System Operators (SSOs) on the AGSI+ website, one of the SSO is RAG storage pool, which includes multiple facilities and it is hence dropped in our aggregation for Haidach.

Appendix A2 shows the 2021 dates which correspond to the week numbers shown in the figures.

The data is subject to the author’s best interpretation of that provided by Entsog.

Data Policy: This page provides a number of Bruegel datasets for public use. Users can freely use our data in its unchanged form or after any transformation for any purpose and can freely distribute it, provided that proper attribution is made to the source, but not in any way that suggests that Bruegel endorses the user or their use of the data.

About the authors

  • Georg Zachmann

    Georg Zachmann is a Senior Fellow at Bruegel, where he has worked since 2009 on energy and climate policy. His work focuses on regional and distributional impacts of decarbonisation, the analysis and design of carbon, gas and electricity markets, and EU energy and climate policies. Previously, he worked at the German Ministry of Finance, the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin, the energy think tank LARSEN in Paris, and the policy consultancy Berlin Economics.

  • Giovanni Sgaravatti

    Giovanni works at Bruegel as a Research analyst. He studied Economics (BSc) at University of Venice - Ca’ Foscari - including one semester at the University of Melbourne, and holds a Master’s degree in Quantitative Economics obtained in Venice - having done the whole second year at the Economics School of Louvain.

    Before joining Bruegel Giovanni worked in the Productivity branch of the Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom. As a trainee he worked at the Delegation of the European Union to Chile and at BusinessEurope. His fields of analysis span from productivity to energy and climate change.

    Giovanni is an Italian native speaker, is fluent in English and has good working knowledge of French and Spanish.

  • Ben McWilliams

    Ben is working for Bruegel as a Consultant in the field of Energy and Climate Policy. His work involves data-driven analysis to critique and inform European public policy, specifically in the area of the energy sector and its decarbonisation. Recent work has focussed on the implications of the ongoing energy crisis and policy options for responding. Other topics of interest include tools for stimulating industrial decarbonisation and the implications for new economic geography from the advent of new energy systems, particularly from hydrogen. 

    He studied his MSc in Economic Policy at Utrecht University, completing a thesis investigating the economic effects of carbon taxation in British Colombia. Previously, he studied his BSc Economics at the University of Warwick, with one year spent studying at the University of Monash, Melbourne.

    Ben is a dual English and Dutch citizen.

Related content