PGS ASA: Awarded 4D Contract in GoM

PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management Defraud Stakeholders

Corrupt Corporate Compliance and Bribed Lawyers Obstruct Justice. Demand Documented Answers to Simple Questions!

pgs asa kristin omreng gareth jones

Some idiotic organization has not performed proper due diligence and hired corrupt and dangerous PGS ASA to conduct a 4D survey in the Gulf of Mexico. PGS Board of Directors and Executive Management need to be investigated for multiple crimes and health and safety violations before stakeholders are placed at risk.

###

How Corrupt Bullies and Lawyers Ruined a Marine Geophysical Company

First Published 20 May 2018 on NoPGS.com. PGS ASA cited this article within their criminal defamation claim under Thai law, but not a breach of contract under the laws of England?

Lawyers have their duties as citizens, but they also have special duties as lawyers. Their obligations go far deeper than earning a living as specialists in corporation or tax law. They have a continuing responsibility to uphold the fundamental principles of justice from which the law cannot depart.
Robert Kennedy

The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference.
Bess Myerson

A blog campaign was initiated on 3 July 2015 against the management of Norwegian based marine seismic services company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Lilleakerveien 4, 0283 Oslo, Norway (PGS), and their UK affiliate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK). On Christmas Eve 2013, I left England with my wife and two children after having signed a settlement contract agreement (SCA). What led to my untimely departure from both England and my PGSUK sponsored job on a Tier 2 visa, was my filing a workplace grievance citing gang-bullying, harassment, abuse of position and breaches in PGSUK written policies, as well as, UK contract and employment laws. In October 2014, citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and motivated by strange interactions encountered when I returned to Houston, TX, USA, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) to discover what personal data PGSUK was processing about me. When I received and viewed the contents of my PGS personnel file, I was flabbergasted to discover forged documents chronicling events which never occurred and excluding events which did. None of the official records were countersigned by me, and yet they were being processed unabashedly as if they were true and accurate records. I knew something very wrong had happened. After being repeatedly lied to and stonewalled by PGS personnel who processed the SAR, I decided to take the risk and go public with my concerns. Thus began my blog writing campaign. I have written over twenty-five (25) blog articles now which have been less than flattering of the management and directors of PGS/PGSUK. This is all in spite of the fact that the SCA contained a mutual non-disparagement clause whose inclusion into the SCA was specifically demanded and initially one-sided.

Therefore, how could such a fair and legal SCA ever decay into an anti-PGS/PGSUK tirade that has called for the resignation of the CEO and PGS company boycott last for over two-years? Publishing these articles certainly violated the very intention and inclusion of the non-disparagement clause. Over this time, I have only been threatened with legal action twice. The first time was through a letter from David Nicholson, who, at the time, was PGSUK Manager of Human Resources (HR). Nicholson threatened legal action in a letter if I continued my interrogatory about the contents received from my SAR. More recently, and actually ongoing, I have purportedly been contacted by Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal and Company Secretary to end my publications that mention him only. Richards is threatening some defamation claim on foreign soil, Thailand, if I do not discontinue publishing such materials. This “Carl Richards”, has apparently has engaged a Thai law firm, and wants to be identified apart from his professional roles as a Head of Legal and Secretary for an English company. Richards is emphatic about his disassociation from PGS/PGSUK and his fiduciary responsibilities to PGS/PGSUK stakeholders in his personal claim. Also, Richards is not a resident of Thailand, nor does he have any business interests in Thailand, as far as I am aware. Richards seems to have very little faith in any legal solutions at his disposal based on the laws of England through a contract that he oversaw. It is my opinion that Richards wants the “whistleblowing” that connects him directly to what I construe to be an illegal fiasco to end, but does not want to engage or confront the particulars which gave rise to all of the blog post articles. Richards, as with all of those implicated PGS/PGSUK actors live in a mythology where their malfeasance and crimes were never detected. They are all running away from responsibility and accountability, and it is truly a disgusting thing to endure from the standpoint as the target in their ruse.

It should be obvious to all aware stakeholders, especially employees of PGS and its global affiliates, that the SCA, which is the combined product of three (3) legal teams, is not a piece of exemplary legal work. At the center of this peach of a contract, is former General Counsel and Legal Compliance lawyer, Rune Olav Pedersen. Pedersen is now the President and CEO for PGS. This clearly shows that PGS promotes their liabilities rather than deal with them responsibly. Pedersen’s cohort on the PGS Compliance Team was Terje Bjøseth, SVP Global HR. The manipulation of processes and records was a conspiratorial endeavor between PGS Legal and HR to rig a HR solution to protect corrupt bullies within both the HR and Marine Contract Sales – Africa business group. They say that organization culture is promoted through HR. When HR is corrupt, corruption spreads like a cancer throughout the organization. Corrupt and fear-based managed enterprises simply do not perform optimally. In a competitive market, demise over time is predictable. Promoting rogue incompetents into leadership roles only hastens the destruction of ethical value based decision making and professional competence in the workforce. Geoscientists rely on the constancy and understanding of physical laws, which can be examined and exploited to explore and delineate the earths subsurface. Corrupt lawyers and HR rely on the manipulation of civic laws and company policy to preserve an unstable enterprise top-hierarchy selfishly directed with arbitrary caprice.

We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics.
Richard P. Feynman

Other than the laws of physics, rules have never really worked out for me.
Craig Ferguson

Geoscientist and engineers should not tolerate having their profession debased through the toxic machinations of lawyers and HR hacks that divorce themselves from playing by the rules. Our profession demands adherence to physical laws, but its value to customers is only derived through sound and ethical performance and presentation. The overseers of legal and policy compliance proclaim lofty professional standards, but in practice they are hypocritically ignored. The top-tiers of PGS enterprise hierarchy support a toxic, dangerous and corrupt workplace culture that supports the selfish interest of the PGS board of directors and top-management. The top-tier is driven by greed and status above all else. The PGS board of directors and top-management operate oblivious to the damage that they are causing through their recalcitrant posture with regard to health and safety, as well as truth and justice. Their irresponsible silence must be construed as general agreement to the public accusations of fraud and corruption and evidence of self-serving cover-up. Such direction and management is really very destructive to PGS corporate shareholders in the long run. Its impact has been hidden through the current difficult market. This inaction reveals a collective avarice and lack of concern in carrying out prescribed agency responsibilities. Such behaviors are truly disgraceful to intelligent and honorable professionals focused on using their skills to improve products, services, and delivery. Unethical business practices for personal advancement should be unacceptable to all stakeholders, and governing bodies need to do their jobs better.

The Black’s Law Dictionary definition of corruption is, Illegality; a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of the law. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. The vital role for a company secretary is ensuring that the company complies with the law. If the secretary is complicit in a crime committed by the company, they could be disqualified or prosecuted. Confidence fraud involves the breach in a relationship of trust resulting in financial loss. It involves misrepresentation of the truth or the withholding of material facts in order to induce another to act to his detriment. Through the different blog post articles, substantive evidence has been provided which shows that the actions of PGS/PGSUK agents have not complied with either PGSUK company policy or employment law. This was, in fact, the core claim made within the formal grievance which I submitted to PGSUK over four years ago. The bullying and harassment were an abuse of power whereby individuals breached protocols, withheld information, and lied in order to limit my ability to realize my full rights under company policy and UK law. It was all fraud in order to pervert the course of justice. The lies and corruption by those holding fiduciary responsibility have persisted even longer. Why aren’t those with fiduciary duty ever held to account and compelled to answer fully to the numerous public accusations made? Corruption is the only answer.

The collective agents with entrusted responsibility and fiduciary duty bestowed upon them remain silent to the many queries and allegations regarding corrupt and non-compliant business practices. Their collective silence and inaction is a travesty, as well as an abrogation of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to all stakeholders. It demonstrates antipathy toward the fair market and its professionals. Simply, these individuals are not fulfilling the duties that they are entrusted to fulfill by agency and title. At the same time, they continue to receive the remuneration and veneration as if they are. They are misleading for personal interest and benefit above stakeholder interests, which is corruption. They are deceiving stakeholders through their lack of honesty and transparency. They are abusing their power categorically. And it matters to me and my family, professional geophysicists and geoscientists, as well as marine seismic market stakeholders at large. Those with entrusted power need to be investigated by a diligent neutral third-party and held to account. It is repugnant to the majority of honorable industry professionals, as well as stakeholders throughout the greater global oil and gas marketplace, that such miscreants have been allowed to damage the reputation and performance of PGS for too long.

For individuals and organizations alike, a reputation is far easier to destroy than it is to build.
Andrew Griffin

A critical ingredient which binds customers to a brand is trust.
Bernard Kelvin Clive

Because the PGS board and top-management take unauthorized agency license and exempt themselves from following enterprise policy and the rules of employment and contract law, the path to a legal and just outcome has become perverted. Through fraudulent and evil practices, corruption and illegality is promoted – to CEO! The processes of legal compliance are being thwarted, in large part, by those in the legal profession who manage over dysfunctional and corrupted enterprise governance practices. Additionally, the corrupt PGS board and management refuse to answer and clarify simple questions regarding legal and policy compliance. Their silence is legal dodge ball, because truthful answers would implicate those with key fiduciary responsibilities directly. The corrupt PGS board and management refuse to fulfill their entrusted fiduciary duties to seek the truth to root out corruption and advance PGS stakeholder interests on a fair and legal playing field. They refuse to take responsibility and answer for decisions made. Most notably, this includes current PGS CEO and President, as well as former General Counsel overseeing legal compliance, Rune Olav Pedersen. Of course, it also includes the former CEO and President of PGS, and sadly, current Statoil Board of Directors Chairman, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, whose irresponsible and corrupt decisions were a product of a toxic, arrogant, and hypocritical management style which defined a debased and opportunistic workplace culture.

The PGS board remains unaccountable, and refuse to clarify points brought-up within the blog posting, Open Letter to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017), These same base questions were also asked months before within the blog post articles, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Veneer of Governance (8-May-2016), Within the latest post article, Carl Richards’, Secretary, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Silence Implies Agreement and the Abrogation of Fiduciary Duty (20-Apr-2018), the argument is made that the silence and inaction by those with entrusted fiduciary duty implies that the accusations made throughout these blog post articles are indeed true, and argues that the silence is self-serving and meant to protect those implicated ill-deserved status and remuneration from scrutiny and discussion. The allegations of fraud, bribery and embezzlement are backed with evidence. It should be easy to respond to such black and white content and spare the accused any professional embarrassment, as well as quall any doubts that stakeholders might have about the character and values of those leading and managing PGS/PGSUK. It is a failure of the fiduciary duty of loyalty not to defend the reputation of the Company and its agents. Therefore, those with entrusted power are abrogating their fiduciary duties of both care and loyalty to all stakeholders through their continued silence on these matters made public. Industry professionals should pony-up for a classaction suit and demand proof and accountability of legal and compliant behavior. Corrupt organizations weaponize their HR departments to protect corrupt incompetence. The decision for honorable professionals is to demand a fair playing field and to beat the corrupt, rather than join them!

Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.
James Madison

When whistleblowers come forward, we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged. When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it.
Sara Harrison

PGS/PGSUK has a vested interest in maintaining a false narrative that a disgruntled employee agreed to an SCA to terminate his employment, rather than undergo a performance improvement plan (PIP). But, this is a completely false narrative which is only supported by the illegal forged documents created and being processed by the same persons who, within the pages of a well-documented workplace grievance, pointed out were liars producing defamatory materials and misusing the performance management system! Further, I was a vulnerable foreign worker, a USA citizen being sponsored on a Tier 2 visa by PGSUK in Weybridge, England. I was reliant on the enterprise governance processes of redress to function. I knew it was not functioning within PGSUK, and that was the basis of the formal grievance in the first place. This is why the grievance was to the PGS executives stationed in Norway. In hindsight, I do not believe that any action with regard to my being a target of workplace gang-bullying was handled legally or according to policy. A performance based termination means that PGS/PGSUK misled the UK Border Agency on the application for my Tier 2 visa and dependents. But, there never was a performance problem. This was fabricated to protect corrupt bullies and company directors from accountability for multiple contract and employment law breaches.

I eventually engaged legal advice from Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, who were with Landau, Zeffert, and Weir (LZW). Through the past several months of uncertainty, it now appears clear to me that my legal advisors were compromised (bribed). How is it possible that LZW legal advisors refuse to explain how forged instruments became part of my true and accurate personnel file records under his watch? During the discussions, LZW was provided with a detailed account of events, beyond my grievance document. Yet, only the false narrative supporting the bullies and directors (secretary) narrative reside in my personnel file. They never have communicated that I should stop my publications or provided any comment whatsoever with regard to my many queries. Landau created a new company the month following my signing of the SCA, Landau Law. Rushton followed him there. When I contacted Landau and informed him that I was submitting an SAR ten months later, he never mentioned his new company or queried as to why I was submitting an SAR. I assume that for PGSUK agents to avoid direct communications, PGSUK enlisted employment lawyer, Rhodri Thomas, with Watson, Farley, and Williams (WFW) at the time. I believe that this made it easier for PGS/PGSUK to portray the negotiations and discussion as normal and avoid direct and simple conversation. All the lawyers directly involved in the SCA discussions were playing to the same false narrative. This is gas lighting.

There are some facts that I am certain of, and then there is some speculation. I know, without a doubt, that the contents of my personnel file are neither true nor accurate. I have known this for a long time. The SCA is a legal instrument formed out of data, mostly from personnel files for personnel actions. This means personnel records. My records are incorrect and incomplete. This instrument was crafted for the purpose of advancing a false narrative to support a false claim and subvert the real facts and nature that the grievance brought forth. The SCA discussions lasted from 11-Oct-2013 to 4-Dec-2013. (LZW legal advisers were not officially engaged until 22-Oct2013.) Nicholson, who was deeply implicated in the mismanagement of the performance management system, and also accused of defamation, was actually allowed to proffer the initial SCA. The documents held within my personnel file are the uncorroborated documents created and even signed by Nicholson. My personnel file does not include the Tier 2 visa status documentation. (UK Border Agency data was provided though the SAR.) It should be noted that a different team of WFW lawyers had reviewed and oversaw the processing of the applications for the Tier 2 visa and my dependents. LZW were made aware of an Occupational Health report and diagnosis, which was performed while SCA discussions were underway. However, the final report was withheld from me and removed from my personnel records. Wouldn’t this data be significant for a bullying and harassment claim? Further, these were real true and accurate data. My counter-signature, nor the signature of first line supervisor, von Abendorff, is not on any of the pertinent documents. They are the creation of Nicholson, whom I never worked under directly and who had no first-hand knowledge of my work product or work group contribution. Nicholson oversaw HR staff that processed such glaringly illegal and non-compliant records. Of course, all lawyers and HR personnel directly involved in this conspiracy are now tight-lipped. They are all perverting the course of justice, in my view.

The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.
Larken Rose

The best way to learn if you can trust somebody is to trust them.
Ernest Hemingway

I never had faith in the grievance process, nor the people controlling it. I did everything within my rights to ensure the process would be as fair as possible. For instance, I made sure that a witness, and UK citizen and worker, was involved. The SCA could have never lasted so long if there were trust. No, the process was intended to drag-out until I capitulated to the lies and torment of an illegally carried-out farce. Unfortunately, my co-worker, John Barnard, turned out to be a stooge who never raised his voice or questioned the process on my behalf. He simply witnessed the destruction of rules and a fellow employee. Barnard should forever be ashamed, and perhaps go to jail, for his cowardice and complicity in the robbery and assault of me and my family. Backstabber Barnard should have never agreed to be my witness. Barnard is a man without honor, as are all who were instrumentally involved in the attempted execution of the character and reputation of a former co-worker. Had the shoe been on the other foot, John, you would have won. Because, I am never intimidated, nor scared, of rule-breaking authority, bullies and liars like Nicholson, Cather and von Abendorff. I never will be. The reason PGS, had to cheat is it was the only way for them to escape accountability and liability. And so the PGS/PGSUK directors remain silent as their executives, as well as the Company’s reputation is tarnished. This is a dereliction of fiduciary duty that damages every aspect of the market, especially its professionals. Shareholders need to care.

So, a person purporting to be Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal and Secretary, is threatening legal action for defamation in Thailand, where I currently reside as a USA citizen with my Thai wife and children. This Carl Richards has never confirmed his identity. The legal firm will not confirm their credentials nor the identity of their client. That’s where we are now. But, the claims made within my blog posts articles have also been shared with UK ActionFraud and the UK Serious Fraud Office. I would like nothing more than for UK legal officials to investigate my claims. There are consequences within the UK legal system for making malicious false claims. Further, and as I have stated previously, the SCA contains clauses to protect from published derogatory statements. As PGSUK secretary, Richards is in charge of making certain that business is carried out legally. So, PGSUK needs to simply show definitive proof that they are processing legal documents as my personnel records. This would be the easiest avenue to ending the online publications. However, this would require Richards wearing his professional hat. But, “Richards” is pursuing his claim on a personal basis, divorced from PGS/PGSUK. He must realize that I am not writing about cross-dressing weekends and drug-laden parties. The published blog articles are written very clearly about Richards professional performance in carrying out his fiduciary responsibilities. I could not care less, nor have I written anything about Richards’ personal life.

None of the published blog articles would have ever been written if the bodies overseeing PGS/PGSUK enterprise governance and legal compliance actually performed the duties which they are legally
entrusted to carry out. Why would lawyers spend weeks parsing out the language of a mutual non-disparagement clause included within an SCA if they were indifferent to having board members, the CEO, and key executives being called liars, cheaters, fraudsters, and assholes? Like my hapless witness, Barnard, even if you do not mind being called such things yourself, what about the majority of stakeholders who prefer not to be associated with these attributes? Whether or not the complainer threatening legal action is the real Carl Richards is almost beside the point. Somebody aligned to Carl Richards’ interests does care. This should be more than enough reason for an attentive board and executive team to be compelled to take action and contract out a thorough and neutral third-party investigation, in lieu of a police investigation. On the central claims made within my blog articles, I have no doubt. I have always invited comment and clarification from those with fiduciary duty with PGS. However, when PGS/PGSUK does not respond to e-mail or online social media, and rather get your means of communication cut-off, it is evident that things are clear enough – too clear! PGS/PGSUK have been naughty, and I have been writing about it. As for Richards, my writing about him is a professional performance appraisal. And it is grounded in substantially more evidence and real data than the one contrived by Nicholson on behalf of PGS/PGSUK. The job of PGS/PGSUK agents is to point out blatant untruths and act on such matters. Their job is to not allow such matters to become personal. That’s what true professionals would do, Carl Richards.

I had requested that defamatory content by von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson be expunged. PGS/WFW/LZW lawyers all assured me that it was on 4 December 2013, the day before the SCA was signed:

6) This amendment is not acceptable. PGS’ personnel records are its property and must naturally give an accurate record of all employees’ employment history. It will not agree to redact or amend in anyway.

Why can’t they prove it is true and accurate today?

My original employment contract also states that I CAN amend records that are incorrect. Why was I never allowed to, and why didn’t LZW lawyers request that I inspect and verify the data? LZW lawyers had also been provided the data to be able to conclude that the contents in my personnel file was false.

Professional is not a label you give yourself – it’s a description you hope others will apply to you.
David Maiter

He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are willing to listen only to rational arguments.
Menachem Begin

###

Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) EVP Per Arild Reksnes Operations Artifice

Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) EVP Per Arild Reksnes Operations Artifice (9 June 2018)

Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.
Spencer Johnson

Art’ is the same word as ‘artifice,’ that is to say, something deceitful. It must succeed in giving the impression of nature by false means.
Edgar Degas

It has been demonstrated, for some time, through the work of W. E. Deming and others, that it is the management of processes and assets that overwhelmingly determines enterprise performance and not individual workers. Management must first thoroughly understand the interactions of processes and assets in order to make the kind of changes that will continually improve enterprise performance. Without such knowledge, there is no guarantee of improvement. Within the May 2018 issue of Oilfield Technology magazine, marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS), Chief Scientist Andrew Long, based in Australia, has penned an article, Streaming Ahead, which examines best practices for marine seismic 4D data acquisition and processing. Apparently, PGS is also recognizing their 25^th GeoStreamer™ (dual sensor streamer) 4D survey, as well. The problem is that every decision made by PGS board of directors and management is predicated on artifice – a game of let’s pretend. When concession operators issue requests for tenders to service providers, the companies respond through providing information about the company’s capability and historical performance in operations, as well as the organization structure identifying those with final decision making authority to be held accountable. This is especially with respect to health, safety, and the environment (HSE). However, such information/data is only relevant if it is accurate, applicable and reproducible. These elements are essential for all processes and for all types of data, seismic or HSE. In the latter case, PGS processes fake data and lies to stakeholders. PGS management will engage in nefarious and illegal acts to silence the voice and destroy the careers of HSE whistleblowers. The PGS Board of Directors participated in the charade through making their own selfish and self-preserving decisions to support corrupt management decisions, to the long term detriment of PGS enterprise performance.

My blog writing campaign has been going-on now for approaching three-years. It has been a rebuke of PGS managerial integrity. Operational Integrity is the objective of good management. It is the synergistic optimization of enterprise resources, along with the best processes and practices that affect product service and delivery. Operational integrity is enterprise utopia where every process, asset, and person is behaving as prescribed and the results are coincident with optimum expectations. In the real world, complex systems are managed through analyzing the residuals between actual results and expected results and then endeavoring to continually improve the use of processes and resources to minimize these residuals. Integrity is defined as concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. Understanding thoroughly the interaction between processes and resources and then making thoughtful decisions to improve these interactions is managerial integrity. Pretending to understand and not following the prescribed interactions between processes and resources and then taking action is artifice. Action alone will never result in the desired outcome, only correct actions will. How human resources are managed impacts all enterprise performance where humans manage. What is certain is that there can never be operational integrity in the absence of managerial integrity. This is why corruptly managed enterprises can never perform optimally. As PGS EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes abused his position of trust by breaching legally guaranteed processes. Reksnes signed fabricated personnel records intended to exonerate corrupt PGS management from HSE, policy, and legal transgressions from accountability in order to destroy the career of an honest employee and whistleblower.

***25 October 2013 (Alleged) Forged Memo processed to affect my termination has never been disputed by*** ***Per Arild Reksnes or anyone else***

On 13-Jun-2013, I was called to, in what is referred to in bullying lexicon, an ambush meeting. The day before this ambush meeting, I had attended the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) annual meeting in London. I was able to attend only one day of the EAGE event. However, I did make a point of listening to a talk presented by Long. I am a USA citizen and was working with PGS’ affiliate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England KT13 0NY (PGSUK) on a sponsored Tier 2 visa. I was called to the ambush by then Human Resource (HR) Manager, David Nicholson. Also in attendance were my first line supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, and his direct superior, Simon Cather, Marine Contract –Africa Regional President. The ambush meeting was a watershed event in my life. I was working within the Contract Sales – Africa group, at the time. My attending this event had been scheduled and even paid for weeks before. Nevertheless, Abendorff was apoplectic about my attending this event. Yes, we were busy. But, the sales group had selected me to attend the event. Therefore, I had organized my work accordingly. And it seemed that attending such an event where potential clients may be attending in our own backyard would be beneficial from a business standpoint too. I had been member of SEG and EAGE for years, long before my role in sales. However, the toxic, narcissistic and sophomoric PGS/PGSUK workplace culture believed that my attending to the delicate egos of corrupt bully bosses took precedence over generating new business relationships. My belief was that abiding by PGS core values, of which HSE performance was high-lighted, took precedence over such egos. This was the back-drop to my being called to the ambush meeting.

Three bullies

True science thrives best in glass houses where everyone can look in. When the windows are blacked out, as in war, the weeds take over; when secrecy muffles criticism, charlatans and cranks flourish.
Max Ferdinand Perutz

The integrity of men is to be measured by their conduct, not by their professions.
Junius

I was very offended by the ambush meeting, as well as the bullying behaviors which preceded it. Following this ambush meeting, I requested minutes from the meeting, as well as an explanation as to how the ambush meeting complied with PGSUK policy and practices. I was denied all of these requests. Six-months later, I would no longer be working with PGSUK. I signed a settlement contract agreement (SCA) that would terminate my paid employment with PGSUK, 5-Dec-2013. My signing the SCA was the culmination of enduring months of having material personal data withheld from me, multiple misrepresentations being told to me and about me, and threats to my job security. My grievance claimed, among other things, gang-bullying and harassment, misuse of the PGSUK performance management system, breach of contract duty of care and mutual trust and confidence provisions. Workplace bullying/harassment behaviors are the abuse of authoritative power with health harming effects. Such behaviors are often antecedent or coincident to othercorrupt behaviors. After I arrived to Houston, Texas, USA, January 2014, I noted strange behaviors and reactions from professionals that I interacted with during job searches and attending Geophysical Society of Houston (GSH) events. Something was off. In October 2014, I filed a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and learned that PGS/PGSUK data processors were processing forged records within my professional personnel file. I was in disbelief. Since that discovery, I have uncovered substantive evidence showing that PGS/PGSUK agents (likely) bribed my legal adviser(s) to forward and process forged documents supporting a false narrative to support a performance based termination to replace the much more serious HSE and defamation claims brought forth within the grievance. I believe that the reason the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) caseworkers were not able to assist in correcting my personal data is because the forged documents were also processed and supported by the other lawyers who formed the SCA.

The grievance directly implicated the ambush meeting participants, von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson. The grievance was submitted to the bullies Norway based superiors, who at the time were, Reksnes, and Terje Bjølseth, SVP Global HR. The grievance was also sent to John Greenway, SVP Marine Contract, who the group often interacted with in strategy meetings. My coworker/witness, John Barnard received a copy. Once the grievance was delivered to the Norway based PGS executives, the decision as to how to handle the grievance became the providence of the executive management team, and in particular, the PGSUK directors/secretary. Reksnes was part of the PGS executive management team. Reksnes’ response should have been guided by his superior, then President and CEO, Jon Erik Reinhardsen. Reinhardsen also served as a director for PGSUK. The other PGSUK directors who shared responsibility for the decided course of action in handling the formal grievance were Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP, and Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Chief Accountant. Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal, had recently (13-Sep-2013) assumed the role of PGSUK secretary prior to the submission of the grievance (20-Sep-2013). My ability to submit the grievance had been obstructed since my communications following the ambush meeting. There was an effort to obstruct my ability to counter or discuss allegations. I never was provided the opportunity to review the data to support the claims made in the ambush meeting, which in hindsight was a DPA violation.

Nicholson stated that both the PGS and PGSUK legal staff had reviewed the grievance and determined that I was in dispute with the Company. I was also informed that I would need to engage a solicitor if I were to consider the SCA. I declined this proffered SCA and stated that I wanted to continue down the grievance process. As a UK trained lawyer, as well as the sole UK national, as secretary, Richards was principally responsible for ensuring process compliance with PGSUK policy and UK laws. Notwithstanding that Pedersen, as General Counsel, also shared these responsibilities. Bjølseth, in addition to being SVP Global HR was on the PGS Compliance Team, along with then PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen. The grievance document submitted 20-Sep-2013 was unambiguous. I was initiating the grievance process. However, I have reason to believe that Norway based executives had been fore-warned that a formal grievance would be submitted. Certainly, Nicholson was aware of that I intended to submit a grievance. However, he was likely caught off guard to be named and implicated directly within the grievance. Therefore, Norway based executives had likely already coordinated a planned response for what they expected to receive, but also needed to adjust their response. A meeting was eventually scheduled for 14-Oct-2013 by Nicholson. No PGSUK officer or PGS compliance, or legal staff (Bjølseth, Pedersen, Reksnes, Richards, etc.) ever contacted me between 20-Sep-2013 and 14-Oct-2014. However, on 10-Oct-2014, Nicholson, who had been accused of defamation and misuse of the performance management system, among other things, proffered a SCA so that I would abandon the grievance process.

Grievance Process

We know that we cannot live together without rules which tell us what is right and what is wrong, what is permitted and what is prohibited. We know that it is law which enables men to live together, that creates order out of chaos. We know that law is the glue that holds civilization together.
Robert Kennedy

When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.
William Blake

Why was Nicholson, accused of lying about me to destroy my career (bullying and defamation), allowed to even meet with me alone at this point? When Nicholson initially proffered the SCA, there was no evidence to suggest that any real investigation had been carried out. I never had been told how the ambush meeting or the subsequent ambush letter which provided similar unsubstantiated allegations regarding performance and threatening my continued employment comported with PGSUK policy or UK law. Also, I never received the requested minutes from the ambush meeting. These facts were explicitly expressed within my submitted grievance. I had always felt that the ambush meeting was inappropriate. The bullies were able to continue violating my human rights as a foreign worker, as well as my rights under employment law and contract law. Nicholson must have also known that the ambush meeting was inappropriate. Once I informed Nicholson that I intended to submit a grievance, there was a concerted effort to obstruct my right to submit a grievance. PGSUK bullies withheld information and misrepresented facts intended to damage my professional reputation and rob me of income. In between the ambush meeting (13-Jun-2013) and ambush letter (24-Jul-2013), 15-Jul-2013, PGSUK renewed and endorsed their sponsorship of me and my family’s Tier 2, Shortage Occupation List (SOL) visa. It was never clarified to me how investigating a possible performance improvement plan (PIP) comported with my status as a Tier 2 visa holder. None of the fabricated performance issues noted during the ambush meeting or within the ambush letter were shared with me or the UK Border Agency. PGSUK intentionally withheld these unsubstantiated allegations from me, and omitted these details on the renewal application of my Tier 2 visa and dependents.

I attended the 14-Oct-2014 meeting by video conference. I was accompanied by my witness, Barnard. Both Reksnes and Bjølseth chaired from Norway. I mostly retold the points raised within the grievance. Meanwhile, I had already been in email communication with Philip Landau, then with Landau, Zeffert, and Weir. Remarkably, Landau was also supportive of abandoning the PGSUK documented grievance stages and move toward an SCA. Landau had been made aware of all details, and provided with the actual grievance document with names redacted 11-Oct-2014. Landau was all aware that I was attending the grievance hearing. There were no other HR proceeding involving me, beyond the grievance. I formally engaged Landau and made payment for his services 22-Oct-2013. I had no direct personal, telephone, or e-mail contact related to the grievance with anyone from PGS/PGSUK following the 14-Oct-2014 grievance hearing through my departure from England, 24-Dec-2013. All communications went through Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton. PGS/PGSUK enlisted the services Watson, Farley, and Williams’ Rhodri Thomas to negotiate the final terms of the SCA, which began 1-Nov-2013. Progress was slow. An additional consideration to the SCA was repatriation costs to the USA. The stress from all of this was building-up, and I took five consecutive sick days in mid-November. Abendorff and Nicholson demanded that I see a contracted occupation health nurse, and I did. I related to her my current circumstances and that I hoped for a fair and timely resolution. She recommended that I see a GP and issued a draft report for me.

***Per Arild Reksnes + Bjolseth*** signed forged Memo

Per Arild Reksnes + Bjolseth

On 5-Dec-2013, I signed a final SCA under some pressure. The reality is that I was a foreigner and I wanted the ordeal to end so I could leave the bad situation. However, on 4-Dec-2013, I requested assurances that the data PGSUK was processing as my personal data was accurate and queried Landau about getting an unfit note and abandoning the SCA discussions and pursuing a constructive dismissal. Landau, Rushton, and Thomas provided assurances that the data was accurate, although at no time was the data itself seen or discussed while Landau was engaged. At the time, I was not as knowledgeable about the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which was a provision in my original employment contract. I was placed on garden leave until my departure from England. Even though the SCA was signed 5-Dec-2013, the terms of the SCA were not fulfilled until April-May 2014. While my repatriation was paid for, PGSUK agreed to only reimburse for moving expenses. When PGS affiliates had moved me and my family before, they usually paid for three months accommodations so that the employee could find suitable permanent living arrangements. My household items finally arrived to my residence in Houston, Texas, USA from Weybridge, England a few months later. And then I had to submit expense forms to PGSUK HR for reimbursement. I had noticed strange interactions when I returned to Houston, where I had not lived for ten years, during job searches and Geophysical Society of Houston events. In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the DPA to PGS/PGSUK. When I received copies of my personal data, I discovered that PGSUK was processing false/forged records in my personnel folder.

6) This amendment is not acceptable. PGS personnel records are its property, and must naturally give an **accurate** account of all employees’ employment history, it will not agree to redact of amend this in any way.

I complained about the personal data PGS was processing in my name following the receipt of my personnel file contents. I asked for most every document which was pertinent to my termination settlement agreement to be removed. PGS refused. They wrote a letter to me demanding that I stop my inquiries. Within this letter PGS did agree to amend my personnel file records by including my 5 December 2014 protest e-mail. Thus, PGS broke the 4 December 2013 promise used to get me to sign this agreement. PGS never showed me the data which they were processing in my name. My solicitor, Philip Landau, never asked for it either. Why not?

Accusations fit on a bumper sticker; the truth takes longer.
Michael Hayden

If you are undergoing a character assassination as we speak, or seem to be cycling through them like Rasputin, it is possible that you are simply an asshole.
Ryan Pannell, How to Survive a Character Assassination

Discovering that defamatory records were being preserved and processed as my personal data has been the impetus behind my blog campaign. PGS/PGSUK has never been compelled to explain or defend how these records were created and allowed to be processed in definitive legal terms. However, over time I have deduced that PGS/PGSUK must have conspired with the lawyers from LZW and WFW to process false records to support a bogus and unsubstantiated performance based termination that would cost PGS/PGSUK much less to settle than fairly addressing the health and safety, breach of contract, and defamation issues brought-up within the grievance. How were LZW and WFW informed and to process illegal documents supporting a false narrative? The answers to these questions point to criminal and civil liability for those in positions of legal accountability, namely the officers of PGSUK and PGS legal compliance, and the lawyers from LZW and WFW who consummated the SCA on false pretenses. My published criticisms and accusations of these principals are not responded to. The PGS compliance team, officers, or lawyers do not respond to my allegations of fraud, embezzlement, and bribery made to their “hotline”. Their collective silence shouts guilt. Yet, stakeholders allow officers, general counsel, and those responsible for enterprise legal compliance to abrogate their agency responsibilities and not defend the interest of the Company, but rather protect themselves personally acknowledging events or taking any responsibility. PGS has now restructured and formed a leaner executive team. Unfortunately, the new PGS executive is composed of the same officers of PGSUK and agents who have been publicly accused of criminal behavior. The corrupt provide the corrupt with sanctuary in Norway.

Companies Act 2006

The top-tiers of the PGS corporate hierarchy are corrupt and selfishly misguided. I was very surprised after I published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015) and received no response from any executive of PGS. This confirmed that Reinhardsen is not an enterprise leader. Reinhardsen’s commercial acumen seems to be his ability to distribute other people’s money to corrupt benefactors to buy allegiance in place him on various Boards of Directors or in executive management positions close to control of the enterprise money spigot. Stealing money from shareholders and redistributing it to corrupt supporters demonstrates a kind of corrupt political acumen, but notreal leadership. I have published numerous articles or images stating Reinhardsen and his disciples, Pedersen, Reksnes and Langseth are liars, cheaters, criminals, fraudsters, and assholes. They remain silent and unfazed by such rebukes, as if this is actually doing their job. Leadership is not about being okay with criticism about you. It’s not supposed to be about the person, as an officer of a company. Leadership is about not accepting criticism of the company and its stakeholders, especially employees. Employees, above all others, represent the character and values of the company, after all. And now Reinhardsen carries his cowardly and dishonorable soiled baggage as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Equinor. Reinhardsen’s corrupt disciple, Pedersen, continues his debauchery as CEO and President of PGS.

My first PGS focused article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015), also called-out PGS employees, by name. If the named employees are upstanding in character and performance, wouldn’t true leadership and agency defend and extol them? And if the allegations of malfeasance are true, then wouldn’t true leadership and agency address the issue in a legally compliant way? Honorable leadership would absolutely defend the honor and character of those whom they lead, as well as the enterprise that they lead, above themselves. They would practice the values they sign to represent, because it is their job and agency to do so. They would defend their honor, because their defense of their own character is inextricably intertwined with the reputation and success of the enterprise. (Apparently, this does not apply to Norwegian corporations.) Leadership that does not step into the fray to defend the honor of the enterprises Chief Scientist is simply cowardly, feckless and corrupt. As for the Chief Scientist himself, who at a different time, published an PGS internal (intranet) essay exalting the benefits of practicing Core Values, where is your outcry and allegiance? I implore you to step into the fray and maintain the integrity of PGS as a technically focused geophysical company (and not a hedge fund). My queries have been simple for a legal and compliant enterprise. I want PGS/PGSUK to demonstrate that only the processes and data PGS used to support an SCA between myself and PGSUK was accurate, applicable and reproducible to support the outcome.

Letter from Reinhardsen

Companies cannot operate reliably, safely and profitably without having all people, processes and assets working properly and cooperatively toward the same objectives. Compliance means demonstrating compliance and not simply stating that there is compliance (Pedersen/Bjølseth). As top-cited workplace hazards, workplace bullying and harassment behaviors negatively impact enterprise reliability, safety, and profitability. The proliferation and damage from workplace bullying and harassment behaviors require the misuse and abuse of legitimate enterprise power. This is why workplace bullying and harassment behaviors are viewed by many as a form of corruption in of itself which negatively impacts most every aspect of enterprise performance. It is also known that workplace bullying and harassment behaviors are too often supported by corrupt management structures against whistleblowers. Corruptly managed enterprises are always less reliable, less safe, and less profitable. Toxic workplaces become a Petri dish for corrupt workplace culture. Toxic workplaces allow processes and resources to be mismanaged to preserve and protect the corrupt power structure at the expense of enterprise performance. The abuse of power manifests itself when there is an existential threat to the enterprise power structure through the proper and principled use of processes and assets. There is a global workplace bullying epidemic. Eliminating such top-cited workplace hazards, such as workplace harassment and bullying, is essential for achieving operational integrity, as well as eliminating corruption. And this includes operations in conducting 4D seismic surveys.

Do not punish people for being honest and truthful. The day we will start punishing people for demonstrating honesty and truthfulness, will also be the day we will start surrounding ourselves with liars and dishonest people. Reward the behavior you want your people to demonstrate.
Sanjeev Himachali

All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.
Scott Alexander

~ Ayn Rand ~

###

The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4 September 2016)

equinor jon erik reinhardsen pgs corruption bru

This post was first published on nopgs.com which was created after several prior articles were posted on LinkedIn Pulse. The Philip Landau advised settlement contract between client SDK and his employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, England, contained Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the employee publishing content that disparages Company stakeholders. Such clauses are worthless if the settlement contract is fraudulent. Complaints got SDK restricted from LinkedIn. SDK then published on nopgs.com. NoPGS.com was stolen from SDK through illegal extortion and vexatious litigation sponsored by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited hired Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen in 2018. PGS ASA seems to have endless financial resources to find and hire corrupt legal “professionals“.

The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen

Conspiracy, Deceit and Fraud in the Marine Seismic Industry

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment of the U.S.A. Constitution

One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real.
Klaus Kinski

You Are as Strong as You’re Honest | Jordan Peterson

Truth be told, I believe that Jon Erik Reinhardsen and several of his executive cabal should be in jail. That’s how I feel about workplace mobbing, especially when it involves fraud. During the past several months Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) agents have violated every Code of Conduct and Core Value which PGS articulates on their web site. PGS has lied to their stakeholders, the UK Border Agency officials, and the Information Commissioner’s Office personnel repeatedly. I have alleged PGS executives to have obstructed legally guaranteed processes, forged official records, conspired to defraud, provided material misrepresentations, breached internal policies and several UK employment and contract laws. Most of all, PGS executives have abused their positions and violated their agency responsibilities of trust and confidence and duty of care to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. Forgery and the uttering of forged instruments is criminal behavior. According to the Crown Prosecution Services, fraud and forgery are punishable by up to 10-years imprisonment for each violation. This explains the silence and hiding from addressing allegations straight-on as a transparent and lawful organization would want to do as quickly as possible. However, in spite of having a legal team, human resources team, and contract team, PGS has been unwilling to present definitive proof of compliance and legal behavior, even though they state to the public and to me otherwise. PGS is mostly involved in a cover-up of corrupt and illicit behavior. PGS executives have been uncooperative and silent and demonstrated no interest in resolution, but instead have ran-away from accountability. PGS executives have compromised the reputation of PGS and the morale of its stakeholders.

equinor jon erik reinhardsen thailand duensing kippen

On 6 September 2015, I published Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign: Applying the No-Asshole Rule in the Marine Seismic Industry on LinkedIn™ (LI) Pulse. It was the most read publication that I posted on LI, based on recorded number of reads which was well over 5000 last time that I had checked. There was proportionately very little outcry over this post. There were warning that legal action toward me by PGS would be imminent. The named executives within the post have remained excruciatingly silent. On 20 September 2015, I published my follow-up piece on LI, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – A Bully Targets Reprise to provide context for the prior post. What is most important for readers to understand, especially PGS stakeholders, is that nothing has ever been communicated to me directly by either Reinhardsen or other executives within the year that has passed beyond their terse defamatory denial. Several additional articles have been posted focused on PGS management over the past few months, as well. My rebuke of the Reinhardsen regime has been grounded in their unwillingness to address the many inconsistencies in their fraudulent narrative construed and propagated by corrupt PGS Human Resources (HR), Legal, and Marine Contract executives. I came upon these inconsistencies through submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) which allows data subjects the right to receive data that data controllers hold about them. I had written about this earlier, 3 July 2015, within, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”.

My blogs are no longer posted on LI (however, they can be found here). Anonymous (to me) complainers led to my posted content no longer being accessible on the LI platform. My connections and membership in my group, Marine Seismic Survey, had kept steadily growing. Nevertheless, a few sympathetic to a corrupt corporation with salaried, albeit apparently incompetent and/or corrupt, marketing and legal teams thought censorship and continued mob-bullying of a target preferable to providing responsible and truthful answers. The content of my posts did not simply make claims that agents of my former employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited [PGSUK], were only mean bullies. Rather, my claims have addressed the retaliatory false narrative held within my professional personnel file after I left my employment with a settlement contract agreement. Settlements are offered mostly to prevent future litigation by terminated/separated employees. Following my protests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the false instruments that PGSUK held in my personnel file (so far to no avail), I contacted lawyers. Of course, the settlement agreement is the instrument to defend against such litigation. Since ICO never investigated even the most basic issues with my held records, I was in a bit of a fix. Similarly, Action Fraud in the UK usually does not investigate claims of fraud anyhow, but especially issues which they would regard as civil tort matters. That is the sad reality of victims of fraud. So, this is when I began the publishing of my story – the truthful narrative – because it mattered to me then and matters even more now. This was a bit of a risk since I had insisted on the inclusion of a mutual non-disparagement clause within the separation contract. Within my articles I have called PGS executives liars, cheaters, fraudsters, charlatan’s and assholes and my articles been in the first-pages of Google™ searches. I have also mailed my articles and/or links directly to the PGS Compliance Team and Audit team members for comment and received no response.

pgs exploration (uk) jon erik reinhardsen thailand duensing kippen

A writer should express criticism and indignation at the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature, but we should not use one uniform expression.
Mo Yan

Truth is the ultimate power. When the truth comes around, all the lies have to run and hide. ~ Ice Cube

It has now been a year since I posted the articles stating that Reinhardsen should resign from his position of President and CEO of PGS. I mostly recognized Reinhardsen as the immediate hierarchical superior above EVP Marine Contract Per Arild Reksnes and SVP HR Terje Bjølseth in the head office of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). I had filed a workplace grievance against my boss, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, Edward von Abendorff; Marine Contract Africa Regional President, Simon Cather; and HR Manager EAME, David Nicholson. These individuals are based in Weybridge, England. I worked within Reksnes’ Marine Contract division, and of course as a member of his group had met and attended meetings with him. I had never met Bjølseth. After many delays and obstructions to actually submit my formal grievance, Bjølseth and Reksnes finally listened to my complaint over video conference. One has to sympathize with the predicament of being a foreigner working within a toxic work environment. There was always (undue) influence and control issues simply because as a Tier 2 visa holder me and my family were in England at the request of PGS. I could not very easily leave my position in a toxic environment for another. I had always known that Bjølseth and Reksnes had rigged the process at some level by how they mishandled the grievance hearing. PGS mobsters/bullies would throw punches in forms of criticism of my performance, but never provide anything in writing which would then provide me the opportunity to sensibly address the issues. But, there really weren’t issues. That’s the point. It was always bullying and mobbing with the objective to have me lose my job and damage my reputation.

All of this malevolent behavior focused on me obviously did not seem correct. It seemed like a disguised constructive dismissal. So, while I was glad to escape England, I knew the process had never been fair. But, at the same time, I did not want to stay in England sponsored by a defendant in litigation. That would have been too difficult for me and my family to endure. We all left Weybridge, England and moved to Houston, Texas. While Houston had been my personal home of record for USA tax and legal purposes, I had been working overseas on vessels, in Africa, in Malaysia and then England for most of my time – 14 years – with PGS. My home of record for PGS had been Thailand while I was working rotation assignments. My wife and daughters had never lived in the USA before our move to Houstion. After about ten-months in Houston, I began to sense some strange vibes (retaliation). But, without direct evidence, there was not much that I could allege. It was during this time that I learned about the DPA and submitted my SAR to PGSUK. I noted many discrepancies in my personnel file which was included with my request.

carl richards jon erik reinhardsen thailand duensing kippen

The most noticeable falsehood which was presented within my personnel file was the 11 September 2013 date reference within two of the documents: the mentioned letter and a memo signed by only Bjølseth and Reksnes. The 11 September 2013 date stood out because it was the date when I had been first scheduled to present my grievance. However, this meeting was rescheduled until 20 September 2013. I had never received a corrected letter. No documents since a controversial meeting in June 2013 through to my settlement agreement had been reviewed or bore my signature or the signature of my immediate supervisor, Von Abendorff. I did not agree with the content held within the records either. I had email records which showed that the meeting had been postponed. I also had email evidence that my grievance was delivered 20 September 2013 and it addressed the issues within the letter too. The only formal process that was ongoing while I was employed by PGSUK was the grievance process which I had initiated. PGS had tried to insert a performance issue, but I resisted simply because I knew no documentation existed which I thought could support a legitimate termination. In fact, that was a central issue of my grievance. PGS never provided anything in writing. PGS had withheld critical 14 June 2013 meeting minutes which were material to a fair process and instead provided me with a letter with performance in the subject line in replacement several days later. No attempt to correct or address my claimed performance issues had ever happened. There was no meeting on 11 September 2013, especially one which addressed performance issues, which preceded the 20 September 2013 delivery of my grievance. But, PGS continues to fraudulently pretend that there was.

I believe the process of going from confusion to understanding is a precious, even emotional, experience that can be the foundation of self-confidence.
Brian Greene

Reality is self-defined as the mob, any mob, writes its own history, never to be contradicted by the quiet statement of truth.
Mike Barnicle

The grievance which I filed was predicated on a 13 June 2013 meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 letter. I was invited to this ambush meeting on very short notice by Nicholson with Von Abendorff and Cather also attending. Obviously, they had planned this in advance. The ambush meeting was very offensive to me. I had to listen to unsubstantiated claims of performance issues. I had asked for minutes of this meeting soon after it occurred and also indicated that I thought it had been inappropriate and that I wanted to file a grievance. Following this email, PGS made a fervent attempt toward a performance based termination. The grievance expounded on the behaviors and violations in procedures and even contract and employment laws and claimed bullying and harassment. Employers, and especially high-level executives and directors bear responsibility to maintain a safe and healthy work environment and can be held liable if they do not. Workplace bullying and harassment are top-seeded and well documented workplace hazards. I cited academic literature, PGS policy, and UK labor laws within my grievance as well. What is interesting is that there was a change of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors 13 September 2013. Notably, the role of Secretary was changed from Candida Pinto to Carl Richards, both lawyers with whom I had worked with during my time at PGSUK. Richards continues to be Head of Legal for PGSUK. (Pinto is with Global Geophysical Services in the UK now.) Nevertheless, she was indeed a responsible director during the times of the documented events, including the 11 September 2013 (non) event referenced within my personnel file. Pinto also has tracked (liked) PGS LI posts where I queried PGS to explain these events (which they never did). (The flurry of queries followed by PGS deletions, followed by more queries, is what pushed my exit button from LI.)

pgs exploration (uk) directors thailand duensing kippen

Cognitive dissonance is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. PGS is a dishonest, corrupt and toxically hierarchal managed organization where bad behaviors propagate and are rewarded. This is the truth which PGS has demonstrated by inaction and silence. The last and only public statement directed toward me by PGS was within their LI comment space. PGS stated that they had investigated my complaints and determined that policies and procedures were followed. This posted statement within the PGS LI space for many to see is patently untrue. Before injecting my allegation into the PGS LI comment space, I had presented many queries through less conspicuous channels of email and telephone. Of course, I requested a thorough report be delivered explaining the many inconsistencies. But, these communications to the PGS Compliance Hotline go unanswered. The focus of the 24 May 2016 post, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud, in fact pointed out how ridiculous the Compliance Hotline team were to consider a terse declaration of PGS compliance anything close to an investigation. I have to state it again, the PGS Compliance and Audit team are an impotent farce. No meaningful report was ever produced and sent to me. I have been a data analyst most all of my adult life and also possess certification as a Lead Auditor for ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems. I know how meaningful audits should be conducted and how to analyze the results. The statement was just more cover-up by PGS executives. The UK and Norway agents/mobsters likely cannot believe that their American (USA) workplace mob/bully target would not and will not stand for a false narrative to be propagated by corrupt and cowardly high-level PGS executives. My truthful LI content is still preserved for posterity in the digital space beyond the reach of trepid PGS cry-babies, and from there more new content will continue to be published.

The first instinct of new workplace subordinates within hierarchical organizations is to be respectful and even diminutive to their hierarchical superiors. (This can be seen as weakness to a psychopath.) However, to actually be respectable requires that superiors adhere to stated policies and procedures. Those who do not accept accountability for the decisions that they make need to be challenged. True respect is only granted to those who accept and are fully accountable for their behavior. Corruption and abuse of agency power is not to be tolerated by those who dignify themselves in values, integrity, and character. When one discovers that the policies and processes that define the conditions of a professional business relationship have been transgressed the only honorable recourse and responsibility to the fair market is to engage and challenge the wrong-doers. This is especially the case when several agents cooperate to manipulate and obstruct the individual’s rights with the wanton intention of harming a target and his family simply because they are illegally afforded the power to do so. Such mobbing violence inflicts tremendous health and financial consequences to the target and their families. All this is done to support and protect a cowardly workplace mob of corrupt fraudsters such as Von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson. If these individuals had a shred of dignity or truth at their defense, or if they were held to do their jobs according to the Code of Conduct and Core Values – if they would have played by the rules – the events of the past year would have never occurred. But, this is not where we are. So, a corporation with a legal team, HR team, and contract team are not capable of providing definitive proof that they followed laws and policies. The conspirators and perpetrators of workplace violence and fraud can only continue to lie and whimper that they have done nothing wrong. Tick-tock, the truth can only lie latent so long.

pgs asa daphne bjerke passport john francas

If you don’t fix latent failures in your system, you’re asking for trouble.
John Gould

It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.
James A. Baldwin

While employed with PGS globally I had exchanged short pleasantries with Reinhardsen on his visits and actually sat at a table with him during an SEG Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. I never harbored any bad feelings toward Reinhardsen and he actually seemed pleasant enough. In 2013, PGS was still operating vessels equipped with conventional single-sensor hydrophone streamers as they phased in replacing them with GeoStreamer™. It was the S-class vessels capable of towing 14-streamers (@100m separation) and 6-streamer capable vessels which operated conventional streamers. The problem was that the S-class vessels did not carry enough streamers to allow maximum capable spreads. Many wondered why the 6-streamer vessel was kept operating at the expense of optimizing the S-class vessels. Within the Africa group everyone knew Von Abendorff was completely absorbed in the older low capacity vessels. (It is almost hard to imagine how he enjoys going to work each day without the low-capacity conventional streamer vessels to proffer and no target to bully!) Reinhardsen did not have much of an answer back then. However, since PGS had built a business model around vessels capable of towing wide-spreads to reduce project costs, maintaining the low-capacity vessels at the expense of the S-class seemed strange. I had limited information about what drove fleet decisions and was curious as someone who was in a position to see what customers and projects requested. From these interactions there certainly would be no reason to ask for Reinhardsen’s resignation.

The achievement of business outcomes is only relevant if enterprise management follows the rules. If they do not, it is called cheating and the performance outcomes are dubious at best. That is why compliance teams are in place and why how businesses address issues of internal governance and reputational risks is of principal importance to all investors in a company. Companies, like civilizations, collapse by the integrity of their leadership and the decisions which they make. It is the strategy of corrupt boards and executives to deflect accountability onto the unwitting investors and away from themselves while reaping misappropriated benefit. It is the strategy of corrupt boards and executives to also disparage those who reveal their malfeasance through further abuse of power and the violation of their commitments to that agency. It is preservation of the syndicate above the stakeholders of the company that defines corruption. Toxic management practices, such as harassment, bullying, and mobbing demonstrate poor management and control of workplace performance. It’s the misuse and abuse of resources to affect suboptimal performance. It is the practice of the dishonest, incompetent, and insecure to deliver unreliable results while hiding corrupt and illegal activities. It’s reprehensible and despotic behavior within the workplace that impacts every aspect of the delivery of products and services to customers.

pgs exploration (uk) directors thailand duensing kippen passport

Apparantly, PGS agents in Weybridge and Lysaker are betting on a bunch of white-collar criminals crying in unison to cover-up the truth. Bjølseth has been a dominant actor through every phase of my grievances with PGS. Bjølseth is also one of the Compliance Hotline contacts. He is accused of forging personnel records and has failed to definitively authenticate the documents he and Reksnes signed. Conflict of interests? The other listed members, Rune Olav Pedersen, General Counsel must be aware of the change of PGSUK Secretary 13 September 2013 and the liability ramifications of directors, especially those who fail to authenticate false records. Along with Silke Hitschke, Compliance Officer, these contacts have never provided any substantive report to me or the public. All have failed to prove otherwise. Emails have been sent to the Compliance Team with questions. The team have also been emailed the articles and/or links for comment and have never responded or disputed the issues brought-up. Yet PGS, as a major player in the marine seismic industry, had to rely on anonymous stooges to complain to LI to have my content removed. I should not be the only one demanding evidence and action. I cannot say that I know Reinhardsen. However, he made commitments within a letter to PGS stakeholders. I believe that a man who decides to facilitate health harming behavior meant to negatively impact the well-being of me and my family should show the respect and tell me why? PGS has the responsibility to explain the reasons behind their actions if they were all above board. But, we all know they weren’t. I may not know Reinhardsen, but I know his character. If Reinhardsen were an effective leader, he would want to know me better too. How long will PGS stop hiding from the truth? My objective is for it to be sooner than later.

Power should be reserved for weightlifting and boats, and leadership really involves responsibility.
Herb Kelleher

Every time you make the hard, correct decision you become a bit more courageous, and every time you make the easy, wrong decision you become a bit more cowardly. If you are CEO, these choices will lead to a courageous or cowardly company.
Ben Horowitz