PGS ASA Nathan Oliver Part of Global Criminal Conspiracy?

PGS ASA EVP Nathan Oliver remains silent and participates in the crimes and human rights abuses perpetrated against a USA citizen and his Thai-USA family to protect corruption.

PINTEREST Q3 2021

SeismicRiskManagement.com

Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128

Evidence Philip Landau Law, London Employment Solicitor, Conspired and Accepted Bribes from PGS ASA to Defraud his Client SDK (20 May 2020)

Accused Criminal Rune Olav Pedersen PGS ASA CEO and President Reduces Company Value (8 August 2020)

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers (16-Sep-2018)

John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal, Ignorance and the Fraud of Omission (4 October 2019)

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Work (8 March 2019)

Why I believe the Criminal Defamation Claim brought forth by Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited, England, KT13 0NY, Secretary, is Fraudulant (7 August 2019)

PGS ASA High Risk (Fraudulent & Defamatory?) Human Resources (HR) Data Processing (14 October 2019)

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker -Part 2 (6 April 2019)

The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)

What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017) p128-129

The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Should Expel Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (11-Oct-2015)

Institutional Betrayal, DARVO, Workplace Mobbing, Gaslighting, and the Geo-Services Professional (24 February 2019)

My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial ( 8 November 2016 updated 9 April 2017 )

###

Daphne Bjerke PGS ASA Global Personal Data Manipulator

Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer and ICO Caseworker (2-Sep-2018)

Second Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Carl Richards and UK Serious Fraud Office (16-October-2018)

Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and UK Serious Fraud Office (9 October 2018)

Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA

(24-Sep-2018)

John Francas, Arbitrary and Capricious, Head of Legal, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (21-Jul-2018)

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers (16-Sep-2018)

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers

(16-Sep-2018)

Second Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Carl Richards and UK Serious Fraud Office (16-October-2018)

Norwegian Geo-Services Compliance Team Stonewall Whistleblowing Claims – 2016 (22 October 2018)

Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)

Institutional Betrayal, DARVO, Workplace Mobbing, Gaslighting, and the Geo-Services Professional (24 February 2019)

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker -Part 2 (6 April 2019)

Letter to UK Companies House and Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary (1-Oct-2018)

Landau Law Didn’t Like My Trustpilot Review? (8 June 2019)

Can PGS Exploration UK Limited Legally Bypass the Terms and Conditions of Previous Contracts Governed Under English Law and Prosecute Claims in Thailand? (3 July 2019)

###

PGS ASA Berit Osnes Never Answers Questions

Norway’s PGS ASA Legal Public Disclosure Images Q3 2021

The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016)

Norway has a Corruption Problem Named Jon Erik Reinhardsen (5 July 2020)

Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. Houston, Texas and Jon Erik Reinhardsen’s Abusive Corruption (24 October 2020)

Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017) – Republish

Bård Stenberg – PGS ASA VP IR & Corporate Communication

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14-Jun-2016)

When Human Resources is Corrupt (10-Aug-2015)

Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015)

My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial ( 8 November 2016 updated 9 April 2017 )

A Texan’s Run-in with Criminals in Weybridge, England (Republish 10 May 2021)

The Society of Exploration Geophysicist (SEG) Should Investigate the Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Reinhardsen Cabal ( 17 October 2016 )

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (30-Jun-2016)

An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)

###

Corrupt and Dangerous PGS ASA Post Q2 2021 Results

Corrupt and Dangerous PGS ASA Post Preliminary First Half 2021 Results

PGS ASA (PGSVY) CEO Rune Olav Pedersen on Q2 2021 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

PGS ASA (OTCPK:PGSVY) Q2 2021 Earnings Conference Call July 22, 2021 3:00 AM ET

Company Participants

Bard Stenberg – VP of IR & Corporate Communication

Rune Olav Pedersen – President & CEO

Gottfred Langseth – CFO & Executive VP

Bard Stenberg

Good morning, and welcome to this audiocast presenting PGS Second Quarter and Preliminary First Half 2021 Results. My name is Bard Stenberg, Vice President, Investor Relations and Communications in PGS. With us from management today are President and CEO, Rune Olav Pedersen; and CFO, Gottfred Langseth.

Before we start, I would like to give some practical information. Participants on this audiocast can submit their questions via the audiocast platform. I’d also like to draw your attention to the cautionary statement in today’s earnings release and presentation and the risk factors disclosed in our 2020 annual report and the Q2 2021 earnings release.

So with that, it’s my pleasure to give the word to Rune Olav.

Rune Olav Pedersen

Thank you, Bard.

In PGS, we have delivered a solid second quarter, considering the challenging market conditions we have been experiencing. We continue to leverage our integrated business models — model, where we operate vessels, and we have an in-house imaging business, and we operate both in the marine contract and the MultiClient market. We believe this positions us well in what we now are considering a recovering market.

In the quarter, we experienced strong MultiClient sales from mature regions in particular. In fact, we were the largest MultiClient player by revenues for the fifth quarter in a row. We experienced late sales of $65.5 million, and we had good client commitment for new projects, leading to strong prefunding.

We are now seeing increasing demand for new acquisition surveys and, I would say, in particular for new contract surveys. This is supported by a positive order book development and, as you will see, increasing bids and leads.

We continue to expect higher 2021 segment revenues versus 2020. And before I move on, I would just like to pause a little bit and comment that PGS is celebrating 30 years in 2021.

In 1991, a few visionary people got together to fund a 3D seismic company in a world which had not seen a lot, if any, 3D seismic. They got funding and they merged the 2 companies, Geoteam and Precision Seismic, and created Petroleum Geo Services. I won’t comment much more on this, except to say that it has been 30 eventful years. And in PGS, we believe the next 30 will also be quite eventful.

So back to the quarter and the financial summary, and I will be brief as Gottfred will go through these numbers in more detail.

On the revenue side, I will just comment that what we saw our largest — our lowest revenues post COVID-19 in the third quarter 2020, exactly as we predicted when we presented these numbers. After third quarter, we have seen a gradual increase for the seismic market.

Vessel booking stands at 17 vessel months in the third quarter; and in the fourth quarter, 8 vessel months; in the first quarter 2022, 3 vessel months. And I am also glad to say that our order book has now increased 4 quarters in a row.

So with that, I give the word for — to Gottfred to go through the financials.

Gottfred Langseth

Thank you. On the key financial numbers, segment revenues and other income, $151.8 million. In the quarter, that’s a 9% increase from Q2 last year; segment EBITDA, $84.4 million; segment EBIT, negative $4.2 million, both EBITDA and EBIT down compared to Q2 2020. And this is down to a primarily a mix change with more contract and less MultiClient and the fact that Q2 last year still benefited from pre-COVID contract pricing. Revenues and other income on the IFRS basis or as reported, $185.9 million in the second quarter, $351 million year-to-date. This is higher than the segment numbers quite significantly. This is down to timing and due to completing several surveys, some of them relatively large during first and second quarter this year.

Lastly, on this slide I will highlight, which is also stated there in the footnotes to the table, that our net financial items in Q2 includes a noncash gain on revaluation of the separate derivative financial instrument deriving from the convertible bond. In addition, also in net financial items, I wanted to mention that the gross interest expense that we are recording on a quarterly basis, of course, includes a significant noncash component, primarily deferred debt issuance costs and imputed interest from the debt rescheduling exercise. And to quantify, more details are in the release, in the second quarter, the gross interest expense amount was $25.3 million, whereas compared to actual cash interest of $20.1 million, so a difference of approximately $5 million.

Then the Q2 operational highlights. Contract revenues of $51.5 million, that’s up from $31 million in Q2 last year. We used more of our acquisition capacity for contracts. 69% of the active time was used for contract now in the second quarter. The total segment MultiClient revenues, $94.1 million, prefunding level of 111% and late sales of $65.5 million.

Then quickly looking at MultiClient revenues by region. North America dominated our prefunding revenues in the second quarter, while Europe had the lion’s share of our late sales.

Vessel allocation and utilization, 68% active vessel time in Q2. This is based on six 3D vessels, including Ramform Sovereign, which operated as a source vessel for approximately half of the second quarter. In Q3, we will have an overweight of contract work, and we will have relatively significant vessel relocations, i.e., steaming, but most likely slightly less than what we had in Q2.

On gross cash costs, we have a sequential cost increase from $92 million to $102 million in the second quarter. This is driven by more operated capacity. Cost will increase further in the third quarter due to higher project activity as well. We have increased our full year gross cash cost estimate to $425 million. The primary driver is increased activity, including Node acquisition and use of Sanco Swift as a source vessel on a combined node and streamer acquisition project. And also including operating Ramform Vanguard now expected to be through most of Q4, almost to year-end. There is also an impact of higher fuel prices as we’ve seen the oil price gradually increased so far this year.

Balance sheet, some quick comments. Cash and cash equivalents of $155.4 million, practically the same as at the start of the year. Net interest-bearing debt including leases, which is last line in the table, is slightly down from the start of the year. The book value of our MultiClient library is $512 million on IFRS basis and $504 million according to our segment reporting.

Then cash flow. We had positive free cash flow in Q2, $11.5 million, the third line from the bottom of the table. This, for avoidance of doubt, is say after everything, after interest and lease payments. Year-to-date, we have a balanced free cash flow or minutely negative, $1 million negative. And this is after payment of refinancing costs primarily in the first quarter.

Working capital and collections at end of Q2 were somewhat frustrating, still impacted by delay of block ratification formalities to the tune of approximately $20 million. These formalities are now sold late Q2 with collection early Q3.

That was my last slide, and I will then give the word back to you, Rune Olav.

Rune Olav Pedersen

Thank you. Fleet activity in July, as you can see, we have 3 vessels in Europe with Ramform Hyperion operating in the Barents Sea on the joint node and streamer project. We see Ramform Sovereign and Ramform Vanguard in the Norwegian Sea and North Sea, respectively. The 2 vessels in Canada, Ramform Atlas and Ramform Titan and Ramform Tethys, is operating outside of Angola.

And as the summer becomes winter in the Northern Hemisphere, we will, of course, move our vessels south. We expect to have a few vessels in the Americas, and you’ve seen us announce a project in Guyana, for example. We will have a few vessels or even maybe even more in Africa, West Africa and Northern Africa. We will have a vessel in the Asia Pacific region, as announced today. Ramform Sovereign will go to Malaysia. And Ramform Vanguard will move to the Black Sea, where she will stay most of the year, if not the entire year.

As I mentioned, we are seeing increasing contract bids and leads levels. And as you can see from the slide, the bids and leads levels are approaching pre COVID-19 levels. In fact, the leads are already there, and the contract bids are approaching that level. Based on this, we do expect quite healthy bidding activity also in the second half.

It is also positive to note that we have received the first 2022 North Sea bids already at this stage. And there are a few of them actually already at this early stage, which is positive news for the contract market.

On the supply side, we are continuing to see historically low supply, obviously. Moderate capacity increase for the 2021 summer season, part of that obviously our introduction of the Ramform Vanguard. And we do not expect any significant capacity increase going into the winter season ahead of us.

Changing gear a little bit. You will remember that we announced in the third quarter that we have started a new business unit in PGS called PGS New Energy. And this time, I thought I would focus on one of the more promising businesses that this new entity is focusing on, namely CCUS or Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage. Obviously, the focus for PGS New Energy will be on the storage side of it because seismic is at the heart of offshore storage. You need seismic to identify, to characterize and to monitoring carbon storage sites.

First of all, you need seismic, and here we can use MultiClient seismic to find the right structures where you can store and insert carbon or CO2. Then you need seismic to interpret that structure to see whether the structure has the right characteristics and is suitable for storing CO2. And finally, if you have found that both of those are in place and you start to insert CO2 into the structure, you need to monitor what’s going on in the subsurface while inserting carbon, and therefore, you need to monitor it.

And this is very similar to what we are currently doing in our 4D activity, in a 4D baseline and then you need to continuously monitoring what happens to the subsurface as you are inserting CO2. There may also be a need to monitor the structure after the insertion is done, but that is probably less intensive.

So as you understand, there is complex geophysical challenges at every stage of CCS, especially offshore storage. So that is one reason why this is an interesting area for PGS New Energy. The other reason, obviously, is that we see a promising near-term market and a potential for a significant business medium to long term.

Currently, there are not much CCS activity worldwide. But we are working with 2 concrete, 4 new projects for next year and also in dialogue around another 2 to 3, which may come next year or in 2023. So we expect to see some revenues coming out of this already next year.

And if you look a little bit ahead, we can see concrete plans for developments up to 2025, which is quadrupling the levels we saw in 2020. And from 2025 up to 2030, if we believe the net zero report, there is 10x as much CO2 storage needed in 2030. And if you go to 2050, you can go another quadrupling from that level again. So as you can see, there is a massive potential in this area, and it has seismic at its heart.

We believe PGS is well positioned to take advantage of this potentially very large market with our integrated approach. We have an existing data library, which is large. It’s in the right place, and it has the right quality. And I am very happy that we today announced the signing of an MOU for a cooperation with CGG to use our existing libraries and put together maybe a CO2 Atlas and try to take advantage of identification and characterization of sites for CO2 storage. So we have great hopes for this cooperation, and we believe we have a complementary both libraries and technical capabilities in the area.

Secondly, we obviously operate our vessels. We do 4D. We are the leading 4D player in the world. And as I explained, 4D will also be needed as we start to insert CO2 into structures offshore. So here, we see a potential for a large market going forward.

And finally, we are also looking into new solutions. As this is a new area, we need to be open for new solutions, how to acquire seismic. There could be more high-density seismic, different types of seismic that is needed. And we have recently also increased our ownership share in a company called Ocean Floor Geophysical, which are very technically advanced, for example, in the area of AUVs. So we look forward to both use our existing competence and explore new technologies, new opportunities when we are building this business. So here, we see a large and promising potential market driven by the energy transition.

So a different topic. We have decided to change our internal policy on announcement of contract awards and multiclient projects. This is done to increase the visibility of how our business is developing between these quarterly presentations. So we will send out stock exchange releases from now on when we receive contract award with an estimated value in excess of the $10 million to $15 million. We will do it when we have been awarded strategically important contracts or MultiClient projects. We will do it when we have been awarded MultiClient projects with a duration of more than 2 months. And we will typically do it when we have signed up to MultiClient projects in joint ventures or in cooperation with third parties. So this is to give you some visibility of when we will send out stock exchange releases.

Guidance. As mentioned by Gottfred, our group cash cost, we are now guiding at approximately $425 million. This is an increase due to higher activity and higher fuel prices. MultiClient cash investment still stands at approximately $150 million. And we expect to use approximately 45% of our active 3D vessel time in our — in MultiClient. CapEx, still at approximately $40 million for the year.

So in summary, as you can — as you hear, we believe we are in a recovering market. We are seeing an increased order book. We are seeing contract bids and sales lead approaching pre COVID-19 levels. So we are seeing an increasing demand for vessel activity, especially contract activity. And we’re seeing this in particularly deeper into the fourth quarter and into the first and second quarter of 2021, where we believe the main increase will come.

We are also experiencing in the first and in the second quarter strong MultiClient sales from our mature regions and, in particular, in the second quarter from Europe and Norway. And we continue to expect higher segment revenues in 2021 versus in 2020.

So all in all, we believe we are well positioned with our integrated model to take advantage of the recovery we see coming. And thank you.

Question-and-Answer Session

A – Bard Stenberg

Thank you, Rune. We will go over to the questions. We have a rather long questions set here from John Olaisen in ABG. Your MultiClient late sales in the first half were up an impressive 68%. The prefunding rate was above 100%. And you talk about improving contract prices. At the same time, your net interest-bearing debt is the same now as it was year-end 2020 and higher than it was a year ago. I’m somewhat puzzled. Why don’t you manage to generate free cash flow? Then he also adds, what is your forecast for the free cash flow in the second half?

Gottfred Langseth

In a way, the — comparing the net debt level to where it was a year back, this is obviously impacted by 2 things: an extremely challenging last 9 months of 2020; and then when it comes to development so far in 2021, which is in a way in line with our plans. We’re still at the — at very moderate levels in this period with respect to contract pricing. And we expect our cash flow generation to improve going forward. We will not provide a guidance or an estimate on free cash flow for the second half, but we expect it to be meaningfully positive.

Rune Olav Pedersen

Yes, when we talk about increasing [indiscernible] we haven’t mentioned contract pricing, but we also see increasing contract pricing, it is not really pricing we have realized much of so far. As you will remember, the first quarter this year was very low on contract pricing, and that also impacted pricing in the second quarter, which we have put behind us. But we are seeing an improvement, that is correct.

Bard Stenberg

Then the second part of his question, your MultiClient sales are impressive especially related to your peers. Why do you think you have been able to outperform your peers on MultiClient economics in the first half? And do you expect to see late sales up year-over-year in second half also?

Rune Olav Pedersen

I’m not going to comment too much on our peers, but I believe we have — in general, have our core MultiClient library sitting in rather mature regions. And it is, for example, the North Sea, which has been strong this first half; but also other places in the world where we have data and are more or less the only one with a significant data presence like Angola, Egypt, and other places, has favored us in this current market environment. We also — which is different from our peers, obviously, do not have a large presence in the Gulf of Mexico, which we have reason to believe that has been muted due to the regulatory changes we have seen there. So that could be part of the explanation. We also believe that the integrated model where we have over time played between the contract and MultiClient market has given us a library which is situated in mature basins where the oil companies are currently focusing.

Bard Stenberg

Yes. Then Mr. Olaisen also has a concluding comment, which you basically have addressed already. If you remember I can just read it out for the sake of good order. In short, I’m somewhat concerned about the sustainability of your MultiClient economics given that basically all of your peers are delivering rather poor MultiClient sales.

Rune Olav Pedersen

Yes, there’s not much for me to comment on that. He can be concerned.

Bard Stenberg

We have a next question from Mick Pickup in Barclays. Last year, you had $160 million of contract revenues for Q2 to Q4. You’ve done $50 million of contract revenues in Q2. Given bookings, this suggests a much stronger Q3 and higher realized pricing, can you comment?

Gottfred Langseth

I think it’s fair to say that we expect higher contract revenues in the third quarter. I think I will leave it with that. The improved pricing that we see in the market will gradually have an increase in impact on our numbers.

Bard Stenberg

Another question from Kim André Uggedal in SEB. With a cash position in line with what it was at the start of the year and the majority of your vessels capacity booked through the end of the year, do you remain as confident to repay the 2022 debt maturities with operating cash flow as you were 6 months ago?

Rune Olav Pedersen

The answer is clearly yes. This is going according to our model. And if anything, we have — we are more confident now than we were half a year ago because we have behind us half a year, which has been a very challenging market where we have delivered according to our plan. But it’s still a year ahead, so there can be no guarantees. But yes, we remain as confident as we have been.

Bard Stenberg

Then we don’t have any further questions at this time. We can pause for a minute to allow people to type in any last questions they may have. John Olaisen in ABG, another long question — not this one. When you say contract prices are up, how much are we talking about? For example, year-over-year, where do you expect contract day rates in second half relative to the daily cost — cash cost?

Rune Olav Pedersen

If we consider the rates we were bidding a year ago going into the second half of 2020 versus where we have currently bid and what’s sitting in our backlog, we are up more than 20% and probably with the margin. Where that is related to cash cost, I’m going to be very careful. But if you assume that we were bidding around cash cost last year, you can probably derive something from that.

Bard Stenberg

Yes. And then Mr. Olaisen has another question. You mentioned steaming in Q3. How much in percent terms should we expect?

Gottfred Langseth

Relatively high, but as of today, it looks like somewhat less than the 21% we had in Q2. This is — this could obviously be impacted by, in a way, the exact timing of completing the surveys in North Atlantic in a way if they extend or otherwise are executed fast or the opposite executed faster, then steaming will start later or earlier. So — but that is the estimate today, somewhat lower than the 21% we had in Q2.

Bard Stenberg

Then we have another question from Mick Pickup in Barclays. Looking at your bidding, how confident are you in further filling the fourth quarter?

Rune Olav Pedersen

Well, as I said, there is a fairly large demand out there. The issue and the problem or what we work with every year at this time is trying to match the jobs we win with the end of the North Sea Canada season. We will, as you see, have several vessels moving south at the same time around beginning of October, so the challenge is always to make sure that we are able to match the start-up dates of contracts and MultiClient programs in the Southern Hemisphere with the end of the Northern Hemisphere, that is going to be a challenge this year as well. There is no silver bullet here, but the way it looks now, it’s a healthy opportunity basket at least, and we are hopeful that we will be able to fill that without too much idle time in between jobs.

Bard Stenberg

Thank you, Rune. At this time, there is no further questions. We can pause for a moment to allow any last minute questions to come through.

A question from John Olaisen in ABG. Will your contract business generate free cash flow after steaming and CapEx in 2021?

Gottfred Langseth

That is our estimate, yes.

Bard Stenberg

And we don’t have any further questions at this time. We will pause for a moment to allow any last questions to come through.

Okay. It does not seem to be any last questions from the audience, so that concludes this audiocast of our Q2 earnings release. Thank you all for participating, and have a nice day.

Corrupt and Dangerourous PGS ASA Part of Seismic Consortium

Seismic Consortium Including Corrupt and Dangerous PGS ASA to Begin MultiClient Survey in Sarawak Basin

###

Corrupt and Dangerous PGS Sign MoU with CGG

Corrupt and Dangerous PGS to Develop MultiClient Data Collaboration for CO2 Storage with CGG

Seismic Consortium Including Corrupt and Dangerous PGS ASA to Begin MultiClient Survey in Sarawak Basin

###

Seismic Consortium Including Corrupt and Dangerous PGS ASA to Begin MultiClient Survey in Sarawak Basin

###

John Francas is Head of PGS ASA UK Legal?

PINTEREST Q3 2021

SeismicRiskManagement.com

MarineSeismicSurvey.com Blog Listing

Neeta Aulak
Director of Risk and Compliance, Watson Farley & Williams LLP

Contact PGS Investor Relations | PGS

RE: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 9:41 AM
Steven
I emailed you on 11 June informing you that there remained disparaging and defamatory material on your website and informing you that until you removed them, we cannot discuss the matters.
Today I noted a renewed activity on your site, with posts on 29 June and 3 July:
http://marineseismicsurvey.com/author/marineseismicsurvey/
It seems clear that you aren’t interested in discussing this issue.
As such I will now instruct our local firm to take appropriate steps as set out to you in previous correspondence.
Regards
John

Re: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 1:28 PM
I am not in Thailand.

Re: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 1:30 PM
I have been in contact with the Compliance Team.
As I mentioned, I do not believe that the litigation is compliant or legal and I asked you to explain,  You refused.
But, please explain now.
Steven

RE: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 5:40 AM
Steven
It is disappointing that rather than comply with the terms of the agreements you signed, you persist in harassing and defaming PGS employees and former employees and disparaging PGS. It is clear that you are not interested in discussing these matters or refraining from your campaign of harassment and defamation.
What you believe about the litigation is not relevant. Further, I am under no obligation to explain anything to you. I am not your lawyer. You are free to instruct a lawyer to answer your legal queries.
The matter is now in the hands of our lawyers in the UK, the US and in Thailand.  You can raise you points about the validity of the litigation in the appropriate forum in due course.
Regards

RE: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 9:36 AM
John Francas,
It has been disappointing to me that PGS has over the course of years never answered questions and engaged my concerns directly.  You are the only PGS agent who has even e-mailed me.
The agreement in Thailand is what I dispute.  I have asked for PGS to explain why they believe the [UK] Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 or [Norway] Working Environment Act does not apply?  
Both the original employment contract that I signed with PGS Exploration UK Limited and the subsequent settlement contract Confidentiality clauses protect whistleblowing.  PGS has never complied with their own internal policy for grievance and whistleblowing.  This is why I regarded the contract in Thailand as unnecessary and likely a means to avoid addressing the whistleblowing allegations.
I have made the same base allegations since July 2015.  I have posted several unanswered e-mails to the PGS Compliance Team from 2016.  PGS should have clarified issues then.
But, I do not believe I have defamed PGS employees;  I have made accusations of non-compliant misconduct and criminal behavior supported by evidence, such as the 25 October 2013 Memo which resides in my personnel folder.  Please explain that document to me.
I have made reports to ActionFraud.  I obviously see a serious problem.  So, if there is an explanation why not share it?
Regards,SDK

RE: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 9:36 AM
Steven
I don’t intend to engage with you further on this matter. I offered to discuss if you removed the material and instead you chose to post additional disparaging and defamatory material.
As per my last email, if you require clarification of legal issues, you are free to instruct a lawyer to advise you.
If you do instruct a lawyer, please have them write to me so that our lawyers can deal directly with your lawyers in respect to proceedings for breach of the Compromise Agreements and criminal proceedings under relevant criminal law.
In closing, PGS has given you many opportunities to row back from your position and move forward with your career and life abroad. You choose not to. The matter will now be dealt with by our lawyers.
Regards

Re: [External] Re: PGS Settlement Agreement and Notices

Jul 4, 2019, 9:49 AM
John Francas,
PGS has never addressed the salient issues behind my writing and only recently provided me with opportunities to remove all content, regardless of its truth in fact.
Again, I have made similar criminal claims with UK police.  PGS was never concerned about that or clarifying issues.
The documents which PGS is processing in my name within my personnel file are inaccurate and defamatory.  I have made this revelation directly to PGS in 2014 when I received the contents of my personnel file.
None of the documents bare a countersignature and are factually incorrect.  This has been the origin of all my postings.
You were not at PGS when I was terminated.  So, your decisions are based on the integrity and authenticity of the documents which PGS processed.  You never authenticated the documents and processes behind the termination settlement agreement when you wrote the SAR response in 2018 referencing the settlement contract.
PGS has unlimited resources compared to me.  All they need to do is explain the 25 October 2013 Memo.
Regards,Steven
Open Letter to Tina Bru, Norway Minister of Petroleum and Energy (13 June 2020)

###

PGS ASA Lies to Shareholders – and Everyone Else

PINTEREST Q3 2021

SeismicRiskManagement.com

MarineSeismicSurvey.com Blog Listing

PGS ASA “Pays for Protection” through bribing those with malleable character who protect corrupt executives.

###

London Employment Lawyer Philip Landau’s Fraudulent Settlement Contract

BLOG LIST from 3 July 2015

Q3 2021 Images

PGS took no legal action for SDKs “breach” of the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract as the 22 December 2014 email threatens.

The contract advised on by London employment lawyers Philip Landau and Holly Hobson for SDK is not enforced because the contract is illegal and supported by forged defamatory records. Any legal action would expose the criminal conspiracy for multiple crimes where they both are principal actors.

In 2013, Philip Landau and his colleague Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson) with legal firm Landau Zeffertt & Weir (LZW) advised on a settlement contract that I, Steven Kalavity (SDK), was coerced into accepting due to the fact that I was a foreign-worker enduring a toxic work environment that endangered my health and that of my dependent family members. SDK had acted on his legal right under contract of employment with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) to raise a formal grievance with his employer. SDK is a USA citizen married to a Thai national. PGSUK sponsored SDK employment by Tier 2 work permit. PGSUK also sponsored my spouse and young dependent children to legally live in England with. SDK and his family could not legally reside in England without PGSUK sponsorship.

The application for the Tier 2 visa / work permit legally required that PGSUK had searched for and was unable to find a person with SDK qualifications in the local job market. PGSUK was a subsidiary of Norwegian parent company Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS). During the general meeting in 2019 it was approved to change the Company`s name from Petroleum Geo-Services ASA to PGS ASA. SDK had worked with several global subsideries of PGS since 1999, but worked for PGSUK living in England from 2010 through 2013. Norway is famous for being a low-corruption country. Norway’s health care system and other social programs are heralded by USA citizens, especially those on the political left. Norway is also famous for the Nobel prizes. However, this publication in combination with the over 100 blog articles and hundreds more image files publishing legally protected public disclosure content – or whistleblowing – exposes rampant Norwegian corporate corruption.

Asking Norway’s PGS for Answers is Criminal Defamation in Thailand? (9 June 2019)

PGS has retaliated severely to suppress the truth and continue deceiving the free-market. PGS has ignored contractual and legal obligations to protect Company value because they chose to ignore health harming workplace conditions and instead illegally terminate a victim of harassment and discrimination through proffering a termination settlement contract. This ploy would have never worked except for the fact that Landau and Hobson, and likely directors of LZW Law, accepted bribes to engage in a confidence fraud and aid PGS corruption. From the start, Landau provided illegal “legal” advice using every deception to deny his foreign legal due process. SDK was a foreign worker with a family in a hostile environment. SDK was prepared to leave England, but was also determined to have his grievances to be heard and addressed per law and contract.

PGS, with the covert help of SDK advisers, bribed lawyers Landau and Hobson and PGSUK representative counsel, legal firm Watson Farley & Williams agent employment lawyer Rhodri Thomas, together gaslighted the entire grievance process and steered the resolution to be a termination settlement contract rather than following the legally prescribed grievance procedure. Foreign worker, SDK and his abused family, would be sent out of the country with a pittance to what was owed having been denied the justice for being victims of their crimes. PGS oversaw and financed this devilish plan. It probably would have worked, but for the collective greed and evil animas of the criminals continued illegal retaliation once the victim returned back to the USA. PGS, Watson Farley & Williams, Landau and Hobson, along with others conspired to have their victim of harassment and discrimination, and now conspiracy to defraud, to be professionally blacklisted through sharing the defamatory false personnel file personal data globally.

PGS orchestrated the obstruction of justice, defrauding of the UK immigration agency, and the defrauding of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) long before SDK engaged Landau and Hobson for legal advice that SDK never actually received. The truth of the matter is that the only reason that SDK is still publishing online seeking justice is because powerful people in Norway allowed laws to be broken to destroy a USA citizen victim of crimes who was prepared to present his grievances. Had these grievances been dealt with fairly and honestly it would have revealed a web of crimes perpetrated by the highest echelons of a respected Norwegian company. At the time, SDK was gladly drinking the Norwegian Kool-Aid and believed the cruel acts being carried out within the office in England was an aberation. However, once outside of the criminal organization, SDK reconstructed events from a safe and honest vantage point where the power-structure had no real power over their victim.

In October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). SDK was provided with his PGS professional personnel file contents. None of the documents pertinent to SDK termination settlement contract were counter-signed by SDK. PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson, solely signed most documents. This was especially troubling since he was one of the principal criminals which was the topic and predicate for the submission of the workplace grievance. However, not only was the content malicious, events and documents were fabricated out of whole cloth. SDK knew something was wrong immediatley, then noted and shared many of the most glaring descrepencies and falsehoods with the SAR personal data processors. PGS knew that SDK was onto them. However, SDK had not considered the breadth and depth of what had transpired in England. PGSUK wrote and email and sent a firm letter by threatening me to stop any more interogatory.

On 3 July 2015, SDK published his first legally protected public disclosure post on the LinkedIn Pulse blog platform. SDK received no email or threat over this publication that should have been a breach in contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions that prohibited publication of content that disparaged PGS stakeholders. On 24 August 2015, SDK submitted one of many reports to UK ActionFraud (police). SDK had already complained vehemently to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) prior to this during and following PGS’ delivery of SAR contents. It was evident to SDK in late 2014 that PGS was processing illegal personal data. However, the incompetence and dysfunction of the police and ICO caseworkers combined with the continuum of cooperative lies by lawyers and HR personnel has been difficult to penetrate. However, it is intuitevely obvious to anyone with common-sense that the Landau-Hobson contract is a worthless peice of shit.

PGS has embezzled a substantive amount of money into the project of deceiving investors. PGS has preserved their own corrupt power structure through promoting criminals who will aid and abet, cover-up, and otherwise continue the lawless business practices. However, PGS has never been able to use the Landau-Hobson contract to stop any publication which exposed such crimes. SDK made several attempts to inform the PGS Compliance Team of the corruption only to learn that they were always in on it, as was the Watson Farley & Williams Compliance Team. LZW Law was dissolved and new firm Landau Law was formed. Landau Law is snaller and has no dedicated person to oversee compliance. But, rest assured if truly investigated all of the named firms are corrupt to the bone – or at the top (i.e., PGS Board of Directors). (Wake the fuck up, ActionFraud!)

The main problem with resolution is that SDK never received legal advice as a legal requirement in England to sign any settlement contract which terminates an individual’s employment requires. SDK received intentionally false advice by Landau and Hobson that fascilitated PGS to break the law. Landau and Hobson were co-conspirators in the confidence fraud. Every HR professional and certainly every employment law lawyer or knows that documents unsigned by the data subject and mostly signed solely by the individual (Nicholson) who was accused of criminal malpractice could not be used in a court of law. Nicholson was already the principal fraudster essentially allowing Edward von Abendorff and his superior, Simon Cather to not incriminate themselves by actually documenting something.

The legal counsel of PGS, Candida Pinto, PGSUK Secretary perverted the course of justice (a crime) and allowed the illegal harassment along with the withholding of documents SDK was legally entitled to receive (fraud). Obstructing SDKs ability to blow the whistle and then allowing the health-harming harassment to continue is reprehensible corruption of the highest order. Pinto’s malfeasance and protection of the abusers made it all the abuse that followed possible. PGS was actively breaching the terms and conditions of the employment contract by helping PGS management obstruct SDKs legal right under contract to submit a grievance. SDK wanted to submit a grievance following a 13 June 2013 ambush meeting. SDK also asked for minutes of the meeting and how the meeting conformed with PGS policy?

None of the request made to Nicholson following the ambush meeting were granted. On 24 July 2013, the Company (PGSUK) sent SDK a letter signed by Nicholson. The Company directers were Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen with Pinto as Secretary. The letter was unproffessional defamation that impugned my professional work performance and reputation. The letter departed from PGS UK Personnel Handbook procedures. None of the directors nor Pinto possessed had any standing to assess SDKs work. Nicholson was the host of the meeting and had signed the ambush letter subject line, Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan. A meeting was scheduled for 11 September 2013. The 11 September 2013 meeting was cancelled and re-scheduled for 20 September 2013. Pinto resigned her role as PGS UK on 13 September 2013 and PGS UK Head of Legal, Carl Richards assumed the role that same day.

SDK was on holiday for part of August 2013 contemplating his future. Much of the formal grievance was written during this holiday. Prior to 11 September, SDK made it clear that he intended to submit a formal grievance. PGS again tried to obstruct and postpone the 20 September 2013 meeting as well. Apparently, there was nothing to discuss about the “investigation.” Nevertheless, SDK did deliver a 21-page grievance. Co-worker John Barnard was asked to be SDKs witness and was copied on pertinent emails regarding the scheduled 11 September 2013 meeting. Barnard had been provided with both firm and electronic copies of the grievance document. Following the delivery of the grievance document to the Norwegian-based executives, superiors of the effort was then directed to obstructing the next step stated in the grievance procedure documented within the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook (Handbook).

Nicholson had been directly accused of malpractice within the pages of the grievance document. However, he still seemed to be driving the process. SDKs contract of employment referenced the Handbook and every employee signed-off on their reading and understanding of its contents. PGS management took extraordinary measures to not allow SDK to reference the Handbook or follow the prescribed grievance procedure. No one from Norway contacted SDK following the emailing of the grievance. Accused of malpractice, discrimination, misusing the performance management system and defamation, Nicholson was allowed to continue misdirecting the Handbook’s prescribed grievance procedure. Eventually, a grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013.

On 10 October 2013, Nicholson called SDK to his office and proffered a termination settlement contract to end SDKs employment without following through the prescribed Handbook procedures. SDK turned-down the settlement offer and looked for legal advice. This is what led to SDK reaching out to Philip Landau, a very experienced employment lawyer in England. Landau was made aware of my Tier 2 work permit status. Landau was aware of the proffered settlement contract intended stop the grievance process and had even been sent a copy of the grievance document with name redacted. Landau was aware that SDK was claiming discrimination and harassment, violations in the Health and Safety Act 1974 and Equality Act 2010.

Landau recommended that he negotiate an enhanced settlement and abandon following through the greivance procedure. Much of his advice surprised me. But, Landau was a employment lawyer of some repute. After all, SDK discovered Landau through reading one of his blog articles. SDK needed to get out of his health-harming work environment. On 22 October 2014, SDK formally engaged Landau. At this point, I understood that PGS was full of bad actors and blamed Landau’s performance on that. However, looking back through the communications with Landau it is obvious that Landau was not working for his client, and neither was his assistant, Rushton-Hobson.

SDK was quite close to abandoning the entire settlement negotiation process, as is preserved within communications between Landau-Rushton/Hobson and SDK. However, who would want to remain in a toxic workplace any longer than they had to? Part of the settlement package was to reimburse moving expenses to the USA. SDK even provided Landau-PGS with estimate cost of the home removal from Weybridge, England to Houston, Texas, USA. Of course, one cannot move anywhere on a dime. The only reason that SDK would have even considered these terms and conditions was due to the toxic work conditions and the expense of repatriating. I am a USA citizen. The only way that I could legally remain in England and litigate was if I had a sponsor.

SDK signed a settlement contract 5 December 2013, although SDK was placed on garden leave through the end of the year. The 5 December 2013 settlement contract between SDK-PGSUK is a fraudulent instrument. It should have never been proffered. PGS bribed legal firm Watson Farley & Williams as well as SDKs advisers Landau-Rushton/Hobson to push for the settlement and then get SDK and his family the hell out of England. While PGS has threatened invoking a breach in the settlement contract, the Confidentiality terms and conditions have never been invoked. PGS, Watson Farley & Williams, and Philip Landau, et al., have remained outwardly silent and instead used complaining to social media to silence their victim of crimes.

In September 2018, the criminals went after SDK and his Thai relatives with illegal vexatious litigation while he lived in Thailand. In February 2020, Thai law firm, engaged by English company PGSUK, threatened to prosecute civil and criminal defamation claims and demanded that SDK return to Thailand? While out of Thailand, Duensing-Kippen delivered packages to the address of Thai relatives to terrorize them. Once alerted that such threatening communications to SDK while he resided in the USA was illegal. Everyone must agree that the settlement contract is a useless legal instrument. PGS has not threatened SDK since June 2020. Landau and Rushton/Hobson have remained silent. So now SDK waits for help from the UK police and the USA FBI. All of this because SDK believed in the mythology of Norway low-corruption and placed faith in the professionalism of Philip Landau.

###

PGS ASA Executives Mocked September 11 Attacks to Torment and Harass a USA Citizen Foreign Worker

MarineSeismicSurvey.com Blog Listing

No PGS PINTEREST Q3 2021

PGS Executives also scheduled their abusive harassment meetings to coincide with significant personal dates

Steven Kalavity (SDK) was employed with Petroleum Geo-Services when the September 11, 2001 (9-11) happened. I was on break and travelling to Da Lat, Viet Nam that day. I had just got off the bus from Na Trang where I had spent the night following a train ride from Da Nang. One of the best things for me about working offshore on marine seismic survey vessels was the 5-weeks on the vessel and 5-weeks off the vessel rotation schedule that gave me time to travel. It was morning when I reached Da Lat and I wandered around as I often would when arriving to an unexplored destination. On this morning, I had come across an interesting coffee shop. The attendent of the shop was frantic trying to explain to me what was on the news. For the first time, I actually found a taxi to take me back to the town center and learn what had happened. I saw the videos of the plane crashing into on of the New York World Trade Center Towers.

In 2013, September 11 was the day that my employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUS) had scheduled an appointment to reveal the outcome to their Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan that was corrupt management’s solution for eliminating their target of harassment and discrimination without having to address toxic and illegal mismanagement. The paradox is that the meeting that was scheduled for 11 September 2013 never happened in reality. It only took place within the false records that PGS processes within my PGS professional personnel file. The records being processed within my PGS professional personnel file are all fabricated defamatory bullshit. Nothing is signed by me and dates, events and records are made-up. This can be easily proven. In fact, it has been proven within several online publications. Unfortunately, the capability of criminals to lie and steal seems to confound UK compliance organizations like the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and ActionFraud (the police) who seem not to know how to catch non-compliant criminals.

The actual date is not formed in my memory. But, I was working for PGS offshore Saudi Arabia on an ocean bottom seismic survey when the USA was forming plans of invasian of Iraq following 9-11. The seismic vessel group passed ahead of USA and UK war ships en route to the survey site. Sorties flew above. The PGS Health, Safety and Environment office (HSE) had produced an action plan for the event that the tense situation turned “hot.” PGS assured offshore crew that if certain thresholds were crossed, then the project vessels would retreat out of the area. A few crew members did not show-up to work that crew-change. Those of us who did make-it to crew change assumed that the promised HSE protocols which had been put in place would be executed when the defined conditions for retreat from the survey area were met. What we learned was that these HSE protocols would not be followed. This truth is denied by offshore operators, but money and preserving the corporate power structure will usually take precedence over HSE concerns. Money is real now, and disasters only might happen.

The crew would receive memos from PGS Norway assuring everyone that management was considering events closely and that the survey could carry-on. At the time, the concern was that Iraq had a supply of chemical-weapons – weapons of mass destruction – which could be unleashed in the region when the US coalition invaded. Of course, looking back, this threat was never real. But, PGS HSE did not know that and nether did the crew. PGS still ignored their set procedures that defined what conditions would stop data acquisition. Prior to my work in the marine seismic industry, I had worked for the US Department of Defense (DoD) at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico (WSMR). It was both scary and amusing to me that PGS HSE executives were trying to explain how they had considered weather and missile trajectory scenarios and assured us that our work environment was safe. The cold hard truth is that PGS was not in the best financial health as a company at the time. PGS was desperate to keep on working, damn the weapons of mass destruction! PGS HSE had no clue about Iraq weapon systems.

My work in the marine seismic industry had been in navigation (instrument positioning) and seismic data processing offshore and in remote centers located in Luanda, Angola and Lagos, Nigeria. Most data processing projects in Europe, Africa and the Middle East (EAME) were managed from the PGS office in England. The offshore data processing staff supervisors and managers worked and communicated to vessel and remote center personnel from their office in England. Offshore staff would submit their time and expense sheets through the office in England. This was my only interaction with Gareth Jones. I never worked with Jones in England, as he was working at PGS in Houston when I worked in Weybridge. Nevertheless, he has had no qualms in helping evil criminals hurt a US citizen and his family. (Did I make an unredeemable mistake on my expense form?)

On September 20, 2013, I delivered a formal grievance to senior PGS management in Lysaker, Norway complaining of misconduct directed to me by my supervisor, his supervisor, Simon Cather, and the EAME HR Manager, David Nicholson. However, these events are only preserved within the pages of the termination settlement contract which resides within my PGS personnel records. PGS knew the importance of this date of 20 September because I had to provide a translated copy of my marriage certificate as part of the Tier 2 work permit application. And of course, since I was a USA citizen with a US home address in Houston, Texas, they understood the significance of 11 September, as well. On 11 September, PGS was going to destroy citizen of the USA and his family. This is the evil that I have been writing to the world about since 3 July 2015. (I had meant to publish on 4 July, USA Independence Day from English tyrannical rule.)

The life of wanderlust one can enjoy on the vessel and remote Africa centers rotation schedule was not as appealing with a family at home. On September 20, 2004 I was married to a Thai woman in Thailand. Thailand was my home of record and I would usually depart from Bangkok for crew changes. I was excited when I moved to England to work with the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Marine Contract Africa Region business unit. I transferred to work in England from the PGS processing center in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (My Thai wife actually wanted for me to remain in southeast Asia.) I thought that I would be able to meet many people in person who I had communicated with by email and telephone in the past.

As a Contract Sales Supervisor, our team would produce bid proposals for offshore Africa data acquisition and processing projects. While living in England, I did meet many of the people who planned and managed projects. But, I did not interact too much with the individual data processors and former co-workers. At PGS, offshore data processing personnel were not in the same work division and management. Operations managed the vessel personnel seismic source, navigation, observers, and real-time data QCs. The Marine Contract business unit worked closely with Operations in assessing operational and commercial risks for projects that would be used for pricing in bids. Over time, I learned that my new work colleagues within the business unit, project management and operations groups had been involved in the decisions made during the Saudi Arabia project.

Through preparing tenders for projects offshore Africa, I learned very quickly the importance of relating successful technical and HSE procedures and processes to winning bids. Work offshore anywhere can be dangerous for operational reasons such as weather, water depth, ship traffic, offshore structures, etc. However, offshore Africa projects especially had to consider issues of political stability, offshore border disputes, and piracy. HSE plans did not only have to be acceptable to the onshore managers, but also to the offshore vessel workers whose safety could be imperiled by these other hazards. That’s how I looked at it anyhow. I was always committed to considering risks and empathetic to the HSE concerns of vessel personnel. I would sometimes bring-up the Saudi Arabia project and relate how the vessel personnel felt when the promised HSE protocols were not followed in the “hot” situation.

What the Deepwater Horizon offshore platform disaster revealed was the hazard of workplaces where reporting health and safety concerns that are serious enough to halt expensive offshore operations is often ignored or retaliated against by the office bean counters. We are told as offshore employee’s that we can stop offshore operations for health and safety concerns. Then how did the Deepwater Horizon disaster happen? What I experienced while working as a USA citizen in England was a business climate where we would tell customers whatever was necessary to win work and then scramble to make sure we could actually meet obligations after we won the work. It seemed very risky and it was. There was a huge gap between the profit that was modeled and that which was realized. It could go either way, which meant our modelling method was not robust. At the end of the day, the only work is from the bids that are won. Risking a percentage loss is better than losing money on idle vessels. Major disasters result from the accumulation of ignoring several smaller risks.

I am not sure why I was chosen to be the target of workplace mobbing. What I do know is that my ability to escape a toxic work environment was more difficult because I was a foreign worker USA citizen. PGS exploited this advantage in the most egregious and mean-spirited way. PGS sponsored me and my family – my children. This is why I will not stop publishing until there is some retribution or until I die. Normal decent people do not treat other people the way that those whom I expose do. These criminal peices of shit belong in prison. There are people of different character and morals. When the NAZIs reigned, some people hid families in their homes while others delivered children to their murderers.

My former coworker’s are morally bankrupt cowards who aid and abet evil criminals, which means they are criminals. In NAZI Germany, laws were evil and law-abiding citizens did evil things obeying evil laws. Good deeds were illegal in NAZI Germany, and yet morally strong people risked their lives by breaking the evil laws. Only evil people will actually break the law to help evil people hurt children and old people – the family of a whistleblower. Everyone that is named and exposed within my protected disclosure could invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions which form part of their employment contracts and penalize me for false claims or defamatory content. The reason that no legal action is taken when I publish criminal accusations is because the accused are criminals! I publish the truth. And several illegal non-disclosure agreements do not change the truth, John Francas and Lars Mysen.

The criminals include a substantial number of London executives and lawyers who are bribed and used by the corrupt parent corporation to pervert the course of justice with their silence. Truth has patience and while I long for justice today, I know that I must be persistent in my pursuit and message. It is tragic that I cannot share positive stories about my work in England. But, it seems even more tragic to me to not be able to live truth because of the fear of truth. Gareth Jones is too scared to declare which PGS subsidiary he worked for in 2013-2014. Simon Cather is a proud Artist Manager who is too scared to counter accusations that he is a lying criminal cunt (and so is Jon Erik Reinhardsen, for that matter). Eddie von Abendorff is too stupid and probably doesn’t even know what he did. David Nicholson will be reknown for being an HR professional who helped collapse the Norwegian low-corruption myth and setting the corporate cock-sucking record during his 40+ year career (But, Joshua May is gaining in you!) My former co-worker John Barnard was copied on several emails and knows the truth. But, John agreed to be a criminal and help destroy my children’s future. My hope is that your children can enjoy visiting your criminal pussy-arse(sp) in prison. Truth and justice has patience.

###

English English French French Japanese Japanese Korean Korean Norwegian Norwegian Portuguese Portuguese Thai Thai