The European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) has published a report examining the European Union's carbon capture and storage (CCS — the process of trapping CO2 emissions and injecting them into geological formations) partnerships with countries outside the bloc.

The report, titled "Distinguishing gold from oil: The EU's global carbon capture and storage partnerships," analyzes how Brussels is building storage relationships abroad as it works toward its decarbonization targets.

What does the report examine?

The EUISS, the EU's in-house think tank on security and defence policy, frames CCS cooperation as a question of strategic interest as well as climate policy. The title itself signals the core argument: the EU must separate genuinely valuable storage partnerships from those that merely serve fossil fuel interests.

For downstream and upstream operators, the report matters because CCS partnership design will shape:

• Where European emitters can ship captured CO2 for permanent storage
• Which third countries become storage hubs tied to EU infrastructure
• How storage agreements interact with continued oil and gas investment in partner states

The analysis sits at the intersection of climate policy and energy security, two agendas that do not always align.

Why does this matter for the oil and gas sector?

CCS has moved from pilot concept to industrial scale in European planning. Storage capacity, however, remains concentrated in a limited number of suitable geological basins, and not all of them lie within EU borders. That gap drives the partnership strategy the EUISS report assesses.

The report's central distinction — gold versus oil — speaks directly to operators weighing CCS ventures alongside hydrocarbon portfolios. Partnerships that lock in real, permanent storage capacity carry strategic value. Partnerships that function mainly as cover for continued fossil fuel production carry reputational and regulatory risk.

The EUISS perspective matters because it feeds the EU's security policy conversation, which increasingly includes energy infrastructure and industrial decarbonization.

What is the watch item?

The report itself contains no new legislative proposals. Its value lies in framing how Brussels may evaluate future CCS agreements with third countries.

Watch for subsequent EU decisions on cross-border CO2 transport, storage certification with partner states, and any criteria distinguishing climate-driven storage deals from hydrocarbon-linked ones.

Takeaway: The EUISS wants the EU to grade its CCS partnerships on climate merit, not on their usefulness to fossil fuel interests.