TFA equivocates on this point, possibly because the bank also equivocated or possibly just due to misunderstanding their terminology.
> The transfer was carried out partially by buying and selling and partly by physically transferring gold, said the bank.
> The bank moved more than 27 tonnes of physical gold from the United States and Canada to Zeist [near Utrecht in the Netherlands]. The same quantity of gold was moved from Zeist to London, preventing the melting down of gold bars.
The second paragraph, with its emphasis on "the same quantity was transferred," sounds an awful lot like a garbled description of buying-and-selling. That is, the gold physically in the U.S. and Canada was sold by the Dutch (to a greater fool), and then the Dutch used the proceeds of the sale to buy a similar quantity of gold in London (from a greater fool). It's similar to moving a corporate headquarters: the building itself doesn't move, you just sell the old building and buy a new one.
OTOH, the first paragraph says "partially by buying and selling and partly by physically transferring gold," as if the second paragraph were only part of the story. But that might have been the writer's attempt to reconcile their own confusion: they needn't understand whether the gold was "transferred" or "bought and sold" if they just write that both stories are partly true!
The political entity that is above the organization currently holding it has shown zero respect for any law or tradition and could conceivably seize it and give them an IOU in US currency. I’m not saying it would go on container ship but it would probably fit in a few standard containers.
From the article it sounds like they moved 27 tonnes, not 86. (Most gold "moves" are just selling in one location and buying in the new, and eating the spread. Eventually I guess there's math showing the spread is large enough it's worth moving)
Also, I would LOVE to understand the logistics of moving 86tonnes of Gold across the world.