The state petroleum terminal was inside the capital, just by residential neighborhoods.
Environmental regulators wanted it moved. The city wanted it moved. Safety officials wanted it moved.
But every oil distributor fought us.
Not only because of the 40-mile distance to the new location.
Because we were breaking their business model.
The Operational Constraint
The terminal’s location created multiple problems:
Environmental and safety risk: A petroleum facility surrounded by residential neighborhoods is a regulatory and political nightmare. One incident, one leak, one fire—and the state government would face lawsuits, media crisis, and political pressure.
Capacity bottleneck: The terminal was too small. The state was importing gasoline from neighboring states at premium prices because we couldn’t store enough locally. This drove up fuel costs for consumers and created political pressure on state authorities.
The solution seemed obvious: Move the terminal 40 miles outside the city to the big port. More space. Better infrastructure. Away from residential areas.
But when we announced the plan, every oil distributor resisted.
Courts blocked the bidding process. Multiple times.
This wasn’t a logistics problem. It was a coalition problem.
Why Distributors Resisted (The Real Constraint)
Under the old model, each oil distributor had its own berth access at the terminal.
It was inefficient—vessels waiting, berths underutilized, no coordination between distributors. But it gave them control.
They could schedule their own shipments. Negotiate their own vessel contracts. Operate independently.
The new model we proposed: Single terminal operator. Pooled tank infrastructure. Single berth access.
From an operational standpoint, this was far more efficient. One operator managing berth scheduling, coordinating vessel arrivals, optimizing tank utilization.
But from the distributors’ perspective, they saw:
- Higher logistics costs (40 miles farther from the city meant more trucking expenses)
- Loss of control (no more independent berth access)
- Monopoly risk (single operator controlling all distributor access—what if they abuse pricing power?)
So they blocked it.
Courts sided with them initially. The bidding process was challenged multiple times on procedural grounds, environmental concerns, and stakeholder objections.
This wasn’t a technical problem. It was a business model + coalition constraint.
We could move the tanks. We could build the infrastructure. We could handle the logistics.
But if the distributors killed the project politically, none of that mattered.
The Breakthrough: Transparent Bidding + Ownership Restructuring
Courts forced us into a transparent competitive bidding process.
At first, I thought this would slow us down even more. More bureaucracy. More opportunities for distributors to challenge the process.
But it became our unlock.
We ran public hearings. We engaged with media to explain the community benefits—removing a petroleum facility from residential neighborhoods, reducing environmental risk, unlocking state fuel capacity.
We held multiple public speaking events where I personally addressed distributor concerns, environmental groups, and community leaders.
The transparent process created public legitimacy. It became much harder for individual distributors to block the project when the community could see the benefits clearly.
But transparency alone wasn’t enough.
The breakthrough came when the winning bidder restructured the business model entirely.
Instead of just promising “better operations” or “fair pricing,” they redesigned the ownership structure:
1. Three separate SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicles) for each liquid bulk type.
2. Each distributor became a minority shareholder in the relevant SPVs.
3. The port authority became a strategic (non-financial) shareholder in the umbrella company.
The port didn’t invest capital. But they held governance rights and provided regulatory support—facilitating approvals, navigating permitting, and ensuring alignment with state infrastructure goals.
This structure changed everything.
Why This Worked
Distributors weren’t just customers anymore. They were owners.
That eliminated the monopoly fear. They had governance rights. They could see the operator’s financials. They had a voice in major decisions.
They also had financial upside. If the terminal succeeded, they benefited directly through equity appreciation and dividends.
The port authority had skin in the game.
Even without financial investment, they were a strategic shareholder. That meant they facilitated regulatory approvals, helped navigate environmental permitting, and ensured the project stayed aligned with state infrastructure priorities.
The transparent process made it harder for individual actors to block.
When stakeholders see the same information publicly, backroom resistance loses power. Individual objections have to be justified in public forums, not just whispered to politicians.
Public legitimacy made the project politically defensible.
State administration could point to community benefits—environmental safety, fuel capacity, transparent process—and dismiss distributor objections as protecting narrow self-interest.
The Outcome
It took two years from decision to operational.
But it worked.
State fuel capacity unlocked. No more importing gasoline at premium prices from neighboring states.
Environmental risk eliminated. Petroleum terminal moved 40 miles outside the city, away from residential neighborhoods.
Business model innovation. Pooled infrastructure with distributed ownership. Governance rights for all stakeholders.
Coalition aligned through equity, not just contracts.
Distributors had ownership. Port authority had governance. Operator had clear mandate.
Everyone had visibility, voice, and upside.
The Lesson for Infrastructure Investors
Before you invest Millions in moving infrastructure, ask:
1. What’s the coalition constraint?
Who can block this project—even if they don’t have formal authority? Distributors? Community groups? Environmental regulators? Union?
2. Can this be solved with ownership restructuring rather than better contracts?
Contracts promise behavior. Equity aligns incentives. Which one solves your stakeholder problem?
3. Does transparency help or hurt?
Sometimes public process forces collaboration. When stakeholders have to justify their positions publicly, individual blocking becomes much harder.
4. Who needs non-financial skin in the game to unlock regulatory constraints?
In our case, the port authority’s strategic (non-financial) shareholding was critical. They facilitated approvals without capital at risk.
Map the Coalition Constraint Before You Deploy the Capex
The projects that scale don’t just solve the technical problem.
They restructure the business model to align stakeholders who would otherwise kill it.
We didn’t just move a terminal. We redesigned who had power, upside, and voice in the new model.
Infrastructure turnarounds aren’t won with better operations.
They’re won by mapping the coalition constraint—then restructuring ownership to unlock it.
— Beatriz
Comments are closed