BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
2023-02-24 13:46:14
Pego power station conversion plans halted
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › Dodgy Deals ›
Dodgy Deal
Oakland Bulk and Oversized TerminalUnited States

Project – On record

This profile is no longer actively maintained, with the information now possibly out of date
Contact:

Johan Frijns

Last update: 2018-04-05 13:26:35
Aerial view of the port of Oakland, California, USA.. Photo: By Robert Campbell - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CC BY-SA 3.0

Project – On record

This profile is no longer actively maintained, with the information now possibly out of date
Contact:

Johan Frijns

Last update: 2018-04-05 13:26:35
Why this profile?

What must happen

The Utah Community Impact Fund should steer clear of investing public money into the proposed Oakland terminal which will likely export millions of tonnes of coal to Asia and would thus be responsible for adding vast amounts of CO2 into the earth's environment. At the same time financial institutions should put a hold on any funding of this project.

About
Sectors Fossil Fuels Bulk Stations and Terminals
Location
Status
Planning
Design
Agreement
Construction
Operation
Closure
Decommission
Website http://oaklandglobal.com/

The project consists of establishing a commodities export facility at the port of Oakland in California. The facility is called the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal and is located on the site of a decommissioned Army base. The terminal requires an investment of approximately USD250 million and is expected to ship between 9.5 and 10.5 million tons of coal each year to Asia. The terminal will be operated by Oakland based TLS (Terminal Logistics Solutions), which is said to be partly owned by Bowie Resources, a Kentucky based coal-mining company.

Impacts

Social and human rights impacts

Concerns are raised over how this project will affect the community's safety, the environment and public health. "Low-income communities of color disproportionately overburdened by pollution are on the front lines of potential train derailment in West and East Oakland," said Ernesto Arevalo, East Oakland environmental justice and housing advocate. "The transportation of coal is another burden to these communities that are already facing other environmental risks and displacement." It will also undermine California's strong commitment to cutting carbon pollution, as the state continues to suffer from extreme drought, forest fires and other signs of climate disruption.

The official voice of the labor movement in the East Bay has come out against plans to export coal from Oakland. The Alameda Labor Council's executive committee passed a resolution opposing the export of coal from the bulk commodity terminal planned for construction at the city's former Army Base.


Environmental and climate impacts

In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, the proposed coal export facility would export approximately  ten million tonnes of coal each year, half of which would likely be from Utah. Ten million tonnes of coal amounts to at least 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted each year. That amount of coal and carbon is the rough equivalent of seven average (500 megawatt) coal fired power plants. To put it simply, to burn more coal of any kind makes air quality, respiratory illness rates, climate change and other problems much worse.

Having a coal terminal on the shoreline will also damage local water quality and aquatic life according to the San Francisco Baykeeper group. 


Other impacts

If four coal-producing Utah counties invest USD53 million in the Oakland export terminal, Carbon County would hold the largest stake, according to documents acquired by Sierra Club through open-record requests. Carbon County would hold 33 percent of Utah's interest, followed by Sevier at 30 percent, Emery at 25 percent and Sanpete at 12 percent. For their investment, they would be guaranteed "throughput allocations" for their commodities equivalent to 49 percent of the terminal's capacity, the documents said. Together, they would earn a 10 percent annual return, paid on a preferred basis from the terminal's net income. Utah officials defend the investment, saying it can connect rural Utah's products, including alfalfa, soda ash, potash and salt, to international markets. But a term sheet indicates coal could monopolize Utah's share, consuming up to the full 49 percent of the terminal's shipping capacity.

Deception and allegations of money laundering and influence-peddling were all behind a scheme to export coal mined in Utah to Asia through a shipping terminal in Oakland, California. To avert public opposition to shipping coal from Oakland, that aim for a new terminal was kept secret for years, while USD 53 million in public funds in Utah that was supposed to be for local civic projects was diverted to help pay for the shipping terminal project. An investment firm that stood to gain USD one million and a rail line in the deal wrote the script. Utah elected officials supporting the plan took money from the coal company pushing the outlet for Utah coal, Bowie Resource Partners. And the secret scheme, once revealed, forced concerned communities in Oakland to scramble quickly to try to stop it. In Utah, a bill in the legislature to get around prohibitions on USD 53 million in community impact funds being used for an out-of-state coal terminal was criticized as a money laundering scheme. Ultimately the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban coal handling and storage, but developers are considering legal challenges still (source corruptionincoal.org).

Financiers

The project has an estimated cost of USD 275 million. Four Utah counties have secured USD 53 million in financing for the project from state agency the Community Impact Board. The state first had to pass a bill that makes it possible to transfer the money to the state transportation budget. In exchange for the funding the counties will get the right to ship goods through the terminal. Jeffrey Holt, an investment banker for Bank of Montreal, is financial adviser and helped the counties to obtain the USD 53 million loan. Bowie Resource Partners is said to contribute guarantees to secure USD 200 million project debt.

Institution type
Finance type
Year
Companies

The company responsible for the project is named Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT). OBOT is in negotiations with Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS) which would operate the terminal. TLS would receive millions of tons of coal out of Utah, brought in by Bowie Resource Partners.

Bowie Resources

United States
Website

Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT)

United States
Website

Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS)

United States
Website
No companies
News
BankTrack
Partners
Blog
External
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Oakland to challenge judge’s ruling overturning coal ban

2018-05-29 | The Mercury News
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

City Leaders Determined to Fight Against Coal Terminal

2018-05-25 | Oakland Post
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

U.S. Judge Blocks Oakland Port's Ban on Coal Shipments

2018-05-15 | Bloomberg
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Decision on Oakland Coal Ban Expected Soon

2018-03-27 | East Bay Express
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Coal firms plead to courts, Trump for West Coast export terminals

2018-01-30 | Washington | Reuters
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

How the future of Utah’s coal industry rests with a federal judge in San Francisco

2018-01-21 | The Salt Lake Tribune
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Oakland, terminal building go to court Tuesday over city’s coal ban

2018-01-15 | San Francisco Chronicle
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

California Attorney General: Oakland's Coal Ban Is Legal

2017-12-08 | East Bay Express
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Judge allows Oakland coal terminal lawsuit to proceed, denying city's request to dismiss it

2017-04-21 | San Francisco Business Times
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Canadian Bank Plays Big Role in Keystone Pipeline, Oakland Coal Terminal

2017-04-11 | No Coal in Oakland
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

April 20 court date looms big in Oakland coal struggle

2017-04-11 | No Coal in Oakland
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Proponents buried coal’s role in Oakland export terminal; now questions remain

2016-04-08 | The Salt Lake Tribune
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Coal’s Frontmen in Oakland: Who owns TLS?

2016-03-16 | nocoalinoakland.info
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Utah Passes Bill to Invest USD53 Million in Oakland Coal Terminal

2016-03-11 | nocoalinoakland.info
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Utah vs. California: Coal Wars, Part 2

2016-03-10 | Cityweekly.net
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Utah vs. California: Coal Wars

2016-03-04 | Cityweekly.net
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Oakland: Sen. Hancock introduces four bills to restrict coal exports

2016-02-19 | The East Bay Times
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

No to Coal Exports in Oakland

2015-12-13 | EcoWatch
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

How Utah quietly made plans to ship coal through California

2015-12-11 | The Los Angeles Times
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

The Coal Export Wars Reach Oakland

2015-09-22 | legal-planet.org
BankTrack news BankTrack blog Partner news Partner blog

Banking on Coal in Oakland

2015-08-19 | The East Bay Express
Resources
Documents
Videos
Links
2015-12-31 00:00:00

Q&A about Oakland coal proposal

NGO document
2015-12-31 00:00:00 | No Coal in Oakland

No Coal In Oakland Rally June 25 2016

2018-03-26 15:04:02

Profile by Sourcewatch

CCIG

Project's website

No coal in Oakland

Earth Justice profile on Oakland coal ban lawsuit

Updates

2018

2018-05-15 00:00:00 | U.S. Judge blocks Oakland's ban on coal

A federal judge has come to the decision that Oakland's coal-ban is in violation of a development agreement. Oakland enacted the ban in 2014 after it became clear that the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) would mostly be exporting coal. In response to the ban the developer started a lawsuit against the city for breaking their agreement and stating the city did not have enough evidence that the shipment of coal would endanger the workers and those living around the terminal. Although the judge's decision is a setback, the Sierra Club, working with the city, is not giving up yet, stating that "this decision is just one step in what we expect to be a long legal process".

2018-01-15 00:00:00 | Lawsuit against Oakland's coal ban moving to trial

The trial on Oakland’s coal ban will start on the 16th of January. The trial will focus on the reasons Oakland’s city officials had to ban coal and if they were substantial enough to conclude that coal poses a health risk.

2017

2017-02-27 00:00:00 | Community groups ask for dismissal of lawsuit challenging Oakland's ban on coal

Earthjustice has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit form OBOT on behalf of the community groups San Francisco Baykeeper and the Sierra Club. The groups also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The groups argue that it was within the right of city officials to institute a ban on coal after Phil Tagami misled the people about the purpose of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal.

2016

2016-12-08 00:00:00 | Developer Phil Tagami files lawsuit against the City of Oakland

Phil Tagami, Oakland real estate developer, filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the approved coal ban is breaking the contract between the city and his company the Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal (OBOT). The attorneys representing OBOT argue that the ban is in violation of federal laws concerning interstate trade as well as maritime shipping and rail transportation.

2016-06-27 00:00:00 | Oakland City Council bans coal

The Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban the handling and storage of coal in the city. Environmental groups say the exposure to coal dust would worsen current issues with air quality and will pose a significant health risk for Oakland citizens. OBOT developers argue that safety measures will be taken to mitigate the risks.

2016-03-26 00:00:00 | Utah Gov. Signs Bill to Fund Oakland Coal Terminal

Utah Govenor Gary Herbert signed a bill appropriating USD 53 million in state money to fund construction of a coal export facility in Oakland. The bill makes it possible to transfer the USD 53 million from a state agency called the Community Impact Board to the state transportation budget, allowing the money to be invested in the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal. 

2016-03-16 00:00:00 | Terminal Logistics Solutions

Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS), the newly created terminal operator hoping to ship millions of tons of coal annually through a new export facility in Oakland, may, in fact, be a subsidiary of Bowie Resource Partners LLC, the coal company whose Utah mines the terminal would serve, according to documents provided by Emery County, Utah, in response to a Sierra Club public records act request.

2016-03-10 00:00:00 | California coal terminal not a legitimate use of Utah millions, groups say

Utah's proposed USD53 million investment in an Oakland, Calif., export terminal is a flagrant abuse of community-impact funds that not only violates federal and state law, but will also subsidize private coal mining corporations and out-of-state developers at the expense of Utah taxpayers and local governments (source: The Salt Lake Tribune).

Send feedback on this profile
Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted