Marine Seismic Survey

Marine Geophysical Exploration

Category: marine seismic (page 2 of 3)

PGS ASA and Carl Richards Stole My NOPGS.COM Domain – I want it back!

My website was stolen from me through what I believe was illegal blackmail forwarded by PGS ASA and former PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary, Carl Richards and current Directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO & President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO & EVP and Christin Steen-Nilsen.

Domain Hijacking is a form of theft where the attacker takes access of a domain name without the consent of the original registrant. Hijacking can happen due to security flaws on your end or the end of your domain/hosting company.

These days businesses are coming online, and their web properties are a major asset to companies. Hacking into someone’s website is almost equivalent to depriving them of their profits and earnings. So that is why hackers prefer to hijack domains and deprive a company of its internet identity.

What is Domain Hijacking and how to recover a stolen domain name

Norwegian company, PGS ASA, UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and former secretary, Carl Richards filed criminal defamation claims against me in Thailand for content that was published on They claimed that my publications were false and malicious and had damaged the reputation of PGS ASA to a criminal level. How did they let this happen?

“Ethics are never optional,” says John Levy. Unethical board behavior invariably leads to bad decisions and disastrous results. At a minimum, it risks reducing shareholder value. And too often it destroys trust.

Why Ethics Are Not Optional

However, as with everything, there appears to be a gray area. No pun intended of course, but this experience made me wonder how much bad news is too much? If someone comes to you for reputation management, it’s highly likely that they’re responsible for committing the sins highlighted in the SERPs [Search Engine Results Page]. If they were innocent, they’d not be at an SEO firm, but in court, filing for libel.

Jane Copland, The Ethics of Reputation Management (or, “Getting Stuff Deleted from Google”)
Section 185. Destruction of Evidence
Whoever, damaging, destroying, concealing, making away with, losing or rendering useless any property or document deposited with the Court or kept by the Court in the judicial proceedings, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both

I now believe that the two Criminal Defamation Claims filed in Thailand by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards were most likely fraudulent. PGS ASA executives Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, Chief Accountant serve as directors of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Carl Richards is a former secretary of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. The question that must be answered is how competent directors could allow the situation to cause such damage? was born in August 2016 following several blog publications on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. In August 2016, I was restricted from publishing on the LinkedIn Pulse platform. I sought a platform independent of misinformed gate-keepers who did not possess a knowledge of true events that I believed were being related in my blog post publications. Between April – August 2016, I had e-mailed articles, links, and content to the PGS Compliance team, which was comprised of (then) PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen, as well as PGS SVP Global Human Resources, Terje Bjolseth. I never received any response to my many queries made through my blog post articles which I regarded as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. The subsequent compromise agreements proffered to stop forwarding the Thai criminal claims initiated in September 2018 – three years following the initial LinkedIn publications — by PGS ASA and Carl Richards demanded that all content residing on be removed because it was deemed defamatory. This included content published between July 2015 – August 2016 that had been sent to the PGS Compliance Team for comment and action.

Because of these facts, I now believe that the taking down of was domain theft. PGS ASA and Carl Richards falsely accused me of crimes in Thailand, but never of contractual breaches in England. Each Thai criminal claim held a possible 2-5 year prison term in Thailand. Using such threats of violence to squelch the voice of a victim of crimes and a publicly declared whistleblower is blackmail. I had committed no crimes, and PGS ASA and Carl Richards knew it. PGS ASA and Carl Richards intentionally and maliciously bypassed contractual provisions governed by the laws of England to remove protected public disclosure – whistleblowing – content by misusing the Thailand criminal justice system. Neither PGS ASA nor Carl Richards ever provided an alternative explanation to counter claims made within the blog post articles of corrupt and criminal acts perpetrated by agents of PGS ASA. I am a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and employed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. I believe that I was illegally terminated from employment through the use of a fraudulent settlement contract. My publications have provided substantive evidence supporting these allegations.

PGS ASA has uttered forged documents to support the fraudulent settlement contract which was proffered to avoid criminal and civil liability for contractual breaches, health and safety violations, harassment, and discrimination which were articulated within a 20 September 2013 filed grievance to PGS ASA executives. The settlement contract agreement signed on 5 December 2013 which terminated my employment contained Confidentiality (non-disparagement) clauses precisely to protect the reputation and business interests of PGS ASA (formerly Petroleum Geo-Services ASA). Yet, PGS ASA does not invoke these clauses to stop my publications in a timely manner? My first publication which identified and named PGS and its executives was published on the LinkedIn(TM) Pulse platform 3 July 2015. An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” [3 July 2015] first publicly disclosed that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was processing inaccurate personal data in violation of the UK Data Protection Act 1998. would have never been online had PGS ASA executives responsibly enforced the terms and conditions of the original employment contract as well as the settlement contract agreement.

PGS ASA Shareholders and Employees should sue the PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executive Management for damages. Corrupt and negligent management has devalued the PGS ASA brand and all that is associated with it.

Nondisparagement agreements have been enforced in court settings at both the state and federal levels. This agreement often gets violated because its wording is vague. Further, many people don’t understand what constitutes as disparagement

This is usually an essential section of an agreement for many businesses, due to the importance of a company’s reputation. Things like negative publicity can drive potential customers away and lead to a drop in profit. Therefore, many businesses will readily seek to enforce breaches of these clauses.

Non Disparagement Clause Sample: Everything You Need to Know
The published contents of when PGS ASA initiated their criminal defamation claim in THAILAND clearly states that promotes anti-corruption and whistleblowing. The actual site postings were in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE – Thai language was NEVER published on Translations were provided to my hired Thai attorney in preparation of my criminal defense. was taken down following my initial breach in the terms and conditions of a compromise agreement which was proffered in lieu of proceeding in criminal defense of my publications in Thailand. was volutarily taken down to avoid criminal trial. I volunteered to remove content. However, I never agreed to the site being taken down completely. This was done without my consent and I believe theft. For one thing, I had broadcast the domain for sale – meaning belonged to me and that it had monetary value.

The published contents of when PGS ASA and Carl Richards initiated their criminal defamation claims in THAILAND clearly states that promotes anti-corruption and whistleblowing. The actual site postings were in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. No content was ever published in the Thai language, nor was any Thai citizen’s name or affiliation published on The only named individuals on were agents alleged to be involved in the uttering and dissimenation of defamatory forged documents related to my termination from employment with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Translations (Google Translate) were only provided to my hired Thai attorney in preparation of my criminal defense. NoThai person, business, or politician was the subject of my publications on was taken down following an alleged breach in the terms and conditions of a compromise agreement which was proffered in lieu of proceeding to trial in Thai Criminal Court. In November 2018, I alerted / blew the whistle to a PGS ASA customer who was negotiating a significant transaction with PGS ASA that I was being threatened with litigation in Thailand for blowing the whistle. I believed then, as I do now, that I was a victim of extortion / blackmail. content was volutarily taken down to avoid criminal trial as PGS ASA and Carl Richards considered accepting the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement proffered in Thailand. All lawyers involved with this compromise agreement had been made aware of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) and Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA) which are in place to protect whistleblowers. I volunteered to remove content and had taken offline during this period of consideration. (I was actually ordained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand for nine (9) days when was taken down. The criminal proceedings especially traumatized my Buddhist wife and in-laws.) However, I never agreed to being taken down completely. This was done without my consent and I believe was theft. For one thing, I had broadcast the domain for sale – meaning belonged to me and that it had monetary value. Further, the taking down of is not part of the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement.

The compromise agreement signed in Thailand did not provide PIDA protection, and therefore clauses restricting published content are voidable under PIDA 43J. PGS ASA and Carl Richards intentionally misused the Thai legal system to avoid the UK and Norwegian legal systems where my complaints and allegations were well grounded in documentation, as well as contract and criminal law. This is why PGS ASA and Carl Richards, as well as other co-conspirators involved in forming the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement which terminated my employment, do not invoke the terms and conditions for confidentiality and non-disparagement. Valid contracts construed under the laws of England provide whistleblower protection. Invoking the terms and conditions of the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement for breaches would also require PGS ASA and Carl Richards to address the salient issues leading to its proffering and also the supporting documentation. I have long contended that the supporting documentation being processed within my PGS Exploration (UK) Limited personnel file is comprised of inaccurate and defamatory forged documents which render the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement to be an illegal contract. I believe that the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement was proffered to conceal criminal and civil wrong-doing. I also believe that my representative counsel/solicitor Philip Landau was bribed to process the forged documents and illegal contract. My online publications on substantiated my claims of criminal wrong-doing by PGS ASA and Carl Richards with documentation. Regardless, in the final analysis, any damages to PGS ASA and Carl Richards’ reputations could have and should have been addressed in the English legal system referencing the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement and not in the Thai legal system – thus BLACKMAIL.

How to Handle a Pathological Workplace – Prof. Jordan Peterson
… the reason that it multiplies is because sensible people say nothing when they should say something …

Under the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act), the applicable limitation for defamation is one year from the date of accrual of the claim, which in libel claims accrued at the time of publication.

I first published online content critical of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) management 3 July 2015. This could have been a breach in the non-disparagement clauses within the signed 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement. However, the reason for publishing my concerns was because I had already brought-up many substantive concerns regarding the integrity of the personal data that PGS ASA was processing about me. I wrote a series of e-mails to PGS ASA human resources (HR) personal data processors challenging the fidelity and legality of that data from 16 October 2014 through 22 December 2014. I also wrote several e-mails to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about my concerns. I provided ICO with much of the same e-mail evidence that countered the narrative preserved within my personnel file contents as unsigned and unauthenticated documents. In fact, PGS ASA initially threatened legal action against me within a 22 December 2014 letter demanding that I stop probing. Within the 22 December 2014 letter, PGS ASA offered to “solve” my complaints through including one of the more substantial e-mail’s written on 5 December 2014. The 5 December 2014 e-mail pointed out the many factual annd defamatory discrpencies in the personal data being processed by PGS ASA. The 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement was/is an illegal instrument which was intended to block legitimate civil and criminal proceedings against PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. All the lawyers and human resources personnel involved with the negotiating and processing of the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement know that it is not a legal instrument. I have believed for some time that I was a victim of crimes perpetrated by PGS ASA. I submitted my first criminal complaint to UK ActionFraud (police) on 24 August 2014. The dysfunctional criminal justice system of the UK cannot discern that narcissistic / psychopathic criminals are adept liars or contemplate that a fake settlement contract was employed to escape criminal and civil liability. The police refuse to ask the most basic questions. No wonder so much (90%) of cimes in the UK go uninvestigated and punished! UK citizen’s should be more outraged than I am!

PGS ASA General Counsel and Legal Compliance at the time of the settlement contract agreement signing was none other than current (alleged criminal) PGS ASA CEO and President, Rune Olav Pedersen! Lawyer Carl Richards was appointed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary 13 September 2013 to prepare for the conspiracy to defraud a foreign worker whistleblower. I believe that operatives in the legal firm Watson, Farley, and Williams, notably Rhodri Thomas, were bribed to process an illegal settlement contract under false pretenses supported by defamatory forged documents along with my hired solicitor, Philip Landau and his associate Holly Rushton. PGS ASA HR personnel must understand that unsigned and unverified documents would not withstand true legal scrutiny in a legitimate court of law. The perpetrators need only to remain silent and take no action to get away with their fraud. The criminal claims put forward in Thailand, which I believe were illegitimate, were a high risk move intended to scare their victim into silence. It didn’t work. I have now breached every contract PGS ASA has formed because I am fully confident that PGS ASA is illegally processing – uttering forged documents created to defame, blacklist, and defraud a victim of their crimes. If the 5 December 2013 signed settlement agreement were a valid legal instrument, then why has PGS Exploration (UK) Limited not invoked its non-disparagement protections? Similarly, if the two compromise agreements signed in Thailand are valid legal instruments, then why can’t PGS lawyers elaborate on how their litigation in Thailand is legal and compliant and also demonstrate that legal processes and documents were processed for my termination of employment? PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refuse to answer or address the concerns brought-up in the 5 December 2014 e-mail challenging the integrity of the data being processed in my name. In other words, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is running from the truth. This is the opposite of defamation.

I worked in England for 36 months on a Tier 2 visa, eligible through the Shortage Occupation List where companies must specifically require and request foreign expertise where there is no resident eligible candidates.  I left England at the end of 2013 shortly after having our family visa’s renewed.  Therefore, DPA applies to my personal data processed in the UK.  The sixth principle of the DPA gives rights to the individual in respect of personal data the organization holds about them.  Toward the end of 2014, I learned more about DPA and submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer to find out what data was being held about me.

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

Most data controllers are inclined to process subject data reasonably.  It would not be fair to suggest that how my personal data was processed is common or reflective of normal business practices.  For this reason, I believe it is imperative that the data controller and processors involved with my personal data be specifically identified.  My employer was PGS Exploration UK Limited, which is an affiliate of the Norwegian company, Petroleum Geo-Services.  For the record, Norway adheres to their version of the EU Directive which is similar to the DPA, the Personal Data Act.  In my daily work in England, I interacted and communicated with the main office in Norway frequently.  I was employed as a Contract Sales Supervisor for the Marine Contract division, Africa region.  My boss in England was Edward Von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales Africa.  His boss is Simon Cather, Regional President for Africa.  The main processor for my SAR was David Nicholson, Human Resource Manager.  I also communicated with individuals based in Norway:  Per Arild Reksnes, Executive Vice President of Marine Contract, Terje Bjølseth, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, and John Greenway, Senior Vice President, Marine Contract with respect to my processed data. 


I am not a multinational company, but I have been around the block and around the world.  I understand the challenges faced in this climate.  I cannot accept my narrative being defined through the tyranny of self-impressed psychopaths.  I want control of my narrative.  I know what I have done for the past fourteen years and before.  For most data subjects the issue is data accuracy, not damages that meet some subjective legal definition.  Falsification is damaging, plain and simple.  It is clear to me that values and performance are interpreted much differently.  This is why any relationship ends and mature people move on.  However, this is difficult to do when those on the other side of the relationship team-up and work in the shadows like vampires scared of the light of day.  Instead, they chose to maintain secret files avoiding confrontation that would require them to defend their objectives and actions.  The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were endowed with the courage to challenge tyranny because while they feared the abuse of power, they feared the submission to it even more.  I call on their spirit.  I am American, and this is MY Independence Day.


From April – August 2016, I attempted to contact PGS Compliance Hotline members many times and even forwarded links and posts directly to PGS Compliance Hotline members, including Rune Olav Pedersen. I never received any response regarding my publications from the PGS Compliance Hotline members. However, the litigation in Thailand forwarded by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and former secretary, Carl Richards, sought to remove ALL content, even content which had been published for over a year and only mentioned their names, regardless of context. PGS ASA has no interest in the truth. The truth is that I am a victim of now multiple crimes perpetrated through a dysfunctional criminal justice system that overlooks white collar crimes and contributes to the destruction of honest law abiding citizens, as many whistleblowers often are. It is a travesty and injustice! Demand that white collar criminals are investigated and adjudicated. Criminals need to be punished, not their accusers!

Google Image Search : pgs asa (1 September 2019)


How will PGS ASA Finance their Debt Before 2020?

Google Image Search PGS ASA. PGS ASA reputation and value is reduced by corrupt and incompetent board of directors and executive management. Stakeholders and shareholders lose, and the industry is diminished, when corruption and the corrupt are protected and too often rewarded for their misconduct and/or criminal behavior.

Report Corruption for the Betterment of the Profession and Industry

Know PGS ASA Pinterests
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB
Pinterest Know PGS ASA
Know PGS ASA Pinterests
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB
Norway’s Working Environment Act
Know PGS ASA Pinterests
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB
Pinterest Know PGS ASA
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB
How to Submit an Anonymous Message to PGS ASA via WhistleB In Practice, PGS ASA does not follow their own policy and procedures with regard to whistleblowers. They continually deceive stakeholders. They have been allowed to since 2013 and it severly damages whistleblowers as well as PGS ASA services.


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

Lawyer Carl Richards refuses to answer simple legal questions, but will file a criminal claim outside his jurisdiction

Google says it invests heavily in thwarting attempts to game search results in violation of its policies. But reporting by BuzzFeed News shows it’s possible to push search results for names, companies, and other specific terms off the top pages of Google, so long as you’re able to spend money over time to make it happen.

Craig Silverman, How To Game Google To Make Negative Results Disappear
Carl Richards threatened legal action in THAILAND against me for my posts which I regard as protected public disclosure – or whistleblowing. Carl Richards, as Secretary of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY, never addressed the salient issues as to how forged and defamatory documents were created and processed to affect my termination from employment following my raising a workplace grievance identifying and alleging executive misconduct, health-harming workplace mobbing, discrimination, harassment, and bullying in the workplace that violated PGS UK policy and UK employment law. My employment contract was governed by the laws of England and contained Confidentiality clauses to protect the reputation of PGS ASA and its affiliates and agents. It also provided whistleblower protection. I contend that Carl Richards was a principal in committing illegal and violent acts against me and my family. Richards does not seek the truth, but to silence his accuser through extortion, blackmail and misusing the Thailand criminal justice system. He has the full support of the corrupt PGS ASA board of directors and executives. What he does not have is truth on his side! Demand police investigation of violent health and safety violations, fraud, forgery, perverting the course of justice, bribery, embezzlement and a host of other infractions. Carl Richards must be held accountable and the truth must be revealed!
Termination Settlement Contract Agreement (SCA) Proffered by PGS Exploration UK Limited and signed on 5 December 2013 Excerpt
Compromise Agreement signed 8 November 2018 to stop the criminal defamation trial proceedings in Thailand brought forth by Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary and PGS UK Head of Legal. Carl Richards was secretary when the 5 December 2013 Settlement Contract Agreement was executed. The 5 December 2013 Settlement Contract Agreement referenced the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) whistleblower protections. The Compromise Agreement signed in Thailand does not offer such protection and therefore according to PIDA such “gagging” terms and conditions are voidable. Carl Richards knew this, but advanced such a claim to intimidate his accuser.
Compromise Agreement signed 8 November 2018 to stop the criminal defamation trial proceedings in Thailand brought forth by PGS Exploration UK Limited. The directors for PGS Exploration UK Limited are: Rune O. Pedersen, PGS CEO; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO; and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant. Langseth and Steen-Nilsen were directors when the 5 December 2013 Termination Settlement Contract Agreement was executed. Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance 5 December 2013. The 5 December 2013 Settlement Contract Agreement referenced the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) whistleblower protections. The Compromise Agreement signed in Thailand does not offer such protection and therefore according to PIDA such “gagging” terms and conditions are voidable. Carl Richards knew this, but advanced such a claim to intimidate his accuser.
Know PGS ASA Gallery
Per Arild Reksnes, PGS ASA EVP Operations has never disputed nor commented on the 25 October 2013 Memo that I contend is a forgery used to support a fraudulent contract and illegal termination from employment for blowing the whistle on PGS ASA management corruption. Explain this Memo, Per Arild Reksnes. It is a human rights abuse and criminal violation to fabricate personal data. I believe that you should be in prison, along with your CEO, Rune Olav Pedersen, CFO, Gottfred Langseth, Chief Accountant, Christin Steen-Nilsen, EVP Berit Osnes, former PGS UK Head of Legal, Carl Richards, and your co-signator, SVP HR, Terje Bjolseth. Justice for your crimes will catch up with you all down eventually.
Know PGS ASA Gallery
Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA CFO & EVP has never disputed nor commented on any of the numerous blog post articles that include substantive evidence of PGS ASA corruption and fraud. I allege that Langseth has been a co-conspirator in fraud and the uttering of forged documents used to support a fraudulent contract and illegal termination from employment for blowing the whistle on PGS ASA management corruption. It is a human rights abuse and criminal violation to fabricate personal data. I believe that you should be in prison, along with your CEO, Rune Olav Pedersen, Christin Steen-Nilsen, EVP Berit Osnes, former PGS UK Head of Legal, Carl Richards, and the signators of a forged 25 October 2013 Memo, EVP Per Arild Reksnes, and SVP HR, Terje Bjolseth. Justice for your crimes will catch up with you all down eventually. Truth and justice has patience.


PGS Exploration Directors Cite Vintage Publications in Thai Claims

Video article: why workplace mobbing destroys mental health and job engagement

Why would a defamed UK company and agents rely on the Thai legal system and not the Confidentiality Terms and Conditions of contracts that they were party to and are governed by the laws of England? Is such litigation legal and compliant?

PGS Exploration UK Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY will engage a Thai law firm and translate content but not actually answer questions or voice concerns in English.

Philip Landau has never commented, complained nor disputed the claims made within my blog post articles directly. Why not? Landau has my contact details. Similarly, no agent of PGS ASA has ever commented, complained nor disputed the claims made within my blog post articles directly. PGS ASA wants my content depublished. Period. They have never even attempted to correct the information since July 2015. Why not?

New Pinterest Know PGS ASA

Current PGS Exploration UK Limited directors: Rune O. Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO; Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA CFO; Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS ASA Chief Accountant, or former secretaries Carl Richards and Candida Pinto had never taken any action until filing criminal defamation claims against me in Thailand. Their claims are without basis and believed to be extortion intended to silence a victim of their crimes. What is untrue?

The original employment contract with PGS Exploration UK Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY was governed by the laws of England. I was a USA citizen being sponsored by the company on a Tier 2 visa. My wife and dependent children were also sponsored.
The settlement contract negotiated by Philip Landau on my behalf with PGS Exploration UK Limited, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY was governed by the laws of England, and not the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand!
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)

Current PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas, and PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, helped forward the claims in Thailand. However, these lawyers refuse to state if the litigation in Thailand was legal under English Law.

Watch this video and get the 5 secret signals that you’re about to be mobbed.


Why won’t PGS ASA Confirm that they did not Misrepresent to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office?
British public left at risk of fraud because it is ‘not police priority’, watchdog finds

Currently, fraud is an easy crime to get away with. This needs to end. Crime shouldn’t ‘pay.’ It undermines the concept of justice and respect for the law.

Challenge corruption, deception, and make the industry more safe and fair by not doing business with opaque organizations who cannot demonstrate their core values or responsible behavior.  This is the plea of all victims of crime: Justice.

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

All of the individual’s named within my articles have always been encouraged to tell their side of the story publicly.  How did their decisions abide by core values, company policy, or common law?

Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (@PGSNews) CEO Reinhardsen Perverting the Course (1 June 2017)

PGS ASA HR employee Gareth Jones, LinkedIn Profile Information

Letter from ICO to PGS Exploration UK Limited Data Subject

Occupational Health Nurse Report of Data Subject was withheld during contract negotiations is not being processed. Is this legal?

PGS agents knowingly withholding material information during negotiations and placing the health and safety of me and my family at risk. Shameful and cowardly!

In the UK, and around the world, perpetrators of fraud escape justice due to an inept and ineffective criminal justice system with misguided strategy and priorities

I implore all stakeholders and decent people to demand that PGS #Pedersen, board, and executives, chronicle and explain how their decisions and actions followed legal compliance and policy.  PGS #Pedersen was obliged to uphold legal compliance under his agency for PGS.  The fact that he did not carry out his legal duties also implies very clearly that he is corrupt beyond measure. – Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017)


PGS ASA Does not Respond to nor Investigate Whistleblowing

PGS ASA Corruption is Protected through the Cooperative Abuse of Power

Why are the documents relevant to my termination not signed by me John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal, Gareth Jones, PGS UK HR Manager, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Weybidge, England KT13 0NY Directors Rune O. Pedersen, PGS CEO; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO; Christin Steen-Nilsen; and former Secretary, Carl Richard; PGS Accountant, PGS General Counsel, Lars Mysen, PGS DPO Daphne Bjerke & PGS SVP HR Bjolseth AND MY SOLICITOR PHILIP LANDAU, UK LANDAU LAW LONDON?


Open Letter to the Office of the Prime Minister of Norway, Erna Solberg

RE:  Norway Corporate Corruption


The Office of the Prime Minister of Norway, Erna Solberg


Directors of PGS Exploration UK Limited:  Rune O. Pedersen, PGS ASA CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS ASA CFO and EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS ASA Chief Accountant

PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen

PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas

Former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary, Carl Richards

PGS ASA Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke

PGS ASA SVP Global Human Resources, Terje Bjølseth (Oversaw grievance process)

PGS UK Human Resources Manager, Gareth Jones

PGS ASA EVP Operations, Per Arild Reksnes (Oversaw grievance process)

RE:  Norway Corporate Corruption

Dear Madam Prime Minister Erna Solberg,

I am a USA citizen who worked for the UK affiliate of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (now PGS ASA) [PGS].  The directors of PGS Exploration UK Limited (PGSUK) are Norwegian parent company executives.  PGSUK sponsored me and my dependent family members on a Tier 2 visa from 26 September 2010 through 31 December 2013.  My employment was terminated through my signing a settlement contract agreement (SCA).    

I believe that my human rights have been violated and that I was defrauded, defamed, illegally terminated from employment and then blacklisted for being a whistleblower.  What I ask for is a thorough and fair third-party police investigation into my allegations.  Much of the evidence backing my claims is posted on  I regard my postings as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.  PGS governance and personal data processing practices have been proven to me to be non-compliant, dysfunctional and corrupt.  Further, I do not want to believe that the Norwegian corporate executive class is above the law.  Are they?  (Sadly, thus far it seems that they are.)     

My writing to you is an act of desperation.  Sadly, I have found PGS corporate governance and compliance avenues of redress unresponsive to whistleblowing allegations of PGS executive criminal behaviors.  I am a victim of these alleged crimes.  In September 2018, PGS executives who serve as PGSUK directors, Rune O. Pedersen, PGS CEO and President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP; and Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant, filed a criminal complaint against me in Thailand, where I was living with my Thai wife and children, for publications that I contended to be protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.  An additional similar claim was filed against me by former PGSUK secretary, Carl Richards.  I believe that the claims filed in Thailand were illegal extortion intended to silence accusations made by a victim of their crimes.  PGS bypassed the confidentiality clauses of my original employment contract, as well as the terms and conditions of my termination settlement contract which were both governed by the Laws of England.  The UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), which protects whistleblowing, is referenced within the contract confidentiality clauses.  To avoid criminal prosecution in Thailand, I was compelled to sign another agreement that would “gag” my continued whistleblowing and essentially take away my rights under English law and contract.  I contend that the claims forwarded in Thailand breached the terms and conditions of my original employment contract (OEC) and subsequent termination settlement contract (SCA) and otherwise violated the confidentiality clauses which included PIDA protections.  I haven’t the financial resources to defend myself.  However, through online publications, I have challenged the legality (Norway/UK laws) of the claims put forward against me in Thailand.  PGS refuses to answer my concerns clearly and definitively.  Instead, I continue to be harassed and threatened with further criminal and civil prosecution in Thailand by the acting (English company) PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas. 

My persecutor’s have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal to make my life hell.  How can I fight back alone?  The terms and conditions set forth in the Thailand agreement seem to also violate similar protections provided through Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA).  My employment contracts with PGSUK were governed by the laws of England.  As recently as June 2018, Francas signed a letter where he reaffirmed the terms and conditions of the SCA were still in effect.  So, how did I end up defending claims translated from Thai language to English in Thailand last September?  I first published my allegations of PGS wrong-doing online the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform on 3 July 2015.  Any online publication which breached the confidentiality terms and conditions of the SCA should have been actionable.  In fact, it would have been irresponsible for the directors and secretary to not take such actions against publications which disparaged PGS or any of its agents.  Failing to take action until September 2018 seems to be negligence and a breach of their fiduciary duties.  It would also be a betrayal to any named subject who was wrongly accused of non-compliant and/or criminal behavior within my publications.  PGS never took any official action against me for numerous publications that were posted between 2015-2016. 

Throughout 2016, I intentionally made the PGS legal compliance office aware of my concerns and e-mailed them links to my many blog postings, and even sent complete articles for them to comment on.  Pedersen was employed as PGS General Counsel during this time.  I am convinced that Pedersen was directly involved in coordinating the original fraud as well as the creation and uttering of forged documents.  Pedersen has never even commented nor challenged my published online allegations.  Many of my publications focused on then PGS CEO and President and former PGSUK director, Jon Erik Reinhardsen (now Equinor Chairman of the Board) accusing him of wrong-doing.  Reinhardsen and his team never responded!  Similarly, Reinhardsen has never defended his decisions and actions nor stood-up or felt the need to exonerate falsely accused employees since 2015.  But, in September 2018, my publications, including a published and unanswered Open Letter to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors, is criminal defamation in Thailand?  No one on the Board of Directors for PGS can answer simple questions?  It seems legally impossible that such claims can be forwarded in Thailand without being thoroughly investigated and vetted for compliance in Norway and/or the UKIt demonstrates that directors of PGSUK were not engaged for several years.  These PGSUK directors should be removed and replaced, is the message that I get.  It is worse than that.  The former and current directors need to be investigated by law enforcement for their covering-up alleged illegal and violent behaviors perpetrated against me and my family.  This is shameless behavior.  No agent of PGS had ever even contacted me officially prior to the delivery of criminal claims to my wife’s house in Thailand.  This is not professional behavior aligned to published PGS Core Values and PGS Code of Conduct.  It was violent and mean-spirited.  And I will not be threatened into silence by incompetent and corrupt company officials, even if they reside in “corruption-free” Norway.         

In the USA, citizen’s have no qualms about speaking truth to or criticizing those who hold political power.  What is often more dangerous for whistleblowers is speaking truth to those with entrusted corporate power.  I could have never imagined the events of the past five years that have exacted such a toll on me and my family.  I am depressed and losing hope.  I have told PGS this.  Nonetheless, PGS just want me to be silent and let them live in their fantasy world of never being caught.  When I submitted my workplace grievance in 2013, I elaborated on the health issues and risks to organizations that workplace bullying and harassment cause.  PGS withheld health advice and care following my delivery of the formal grievance in 2013.  Rather than behave ethically and in accordance to the published policy, procedures, and values, PGS leadership decided to place my health and the health of my family at risk before accepting responsibility.  This is sick and evil behavior.  It violates the Norwegian Corporate Governance Code of Practice.  But, somehow, Reinhardsen escapes investigation and inquiry and ascends to become the Chairman of the Board for Norway’s largest corporation which is largely state owned?  Such allegations are a blemish to the reputation of Norway and should be investigated.  If the allegations are true, and I believe that they are, then Norway is operating in a mythology which disrupts the reality of real-time commerce.  We cannot accept, globally, despotic and corrupt corporate leadership.  There may be a lot more corruption in Texas.  I do not know.  What I do know is that I am a Texan who believes he is a victim of crimes perpetrated by executives of a Norwegian company.  My justice requires the attention and help from the Norwegian government.  Please help me.


Steven D. Kalavity


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

I believe that PGS ASA has intentionally defrauded and defamed me for blowing the whistle on them in 2013. This is based on authentic time-stamped e-mail evidence. Now, PGS ASA is harassing me and my family. PGS ASA is trying to blackmail / extort me into silence through their unfounded/fraudulent criminal defamation claims in Thailand.

Balancing Duties in Litigation (November 2018),
UK Solicitor Regulatory Authority (SRA)

Explain the 25 October 2013 Memo signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes, Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, Lars Mysen, John Francas, Daphne Bjerke, Carl Richards, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gareth Jones, David Nicholson, Simon Cather, Philip Landau, Rhodri Thomas, or ANYONE ELSE!

The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander
The assertion, declaration, or statement of a party to an action, made in a pleading, setting out what he expects to prove. A material allegation in a pleading is one essential to the claim or defense, and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient. 
John Francas wrote his response to my 2018 GDPR subject access request in July 2018 citing the terms and conditions of the termination settlement contract signed 5 December 2013. The “Open Letter to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors” referenced here was published online 18 June 2017 and did not even constitute a comment or breach in the settlement contract.
How is it that all lawyers involved in forming and negotiating the termination settlement agreement signed 5 December 2013 all uttered the same false narrative and forged documents when they had been provided with different (TRUE) facts?


Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker -Part 2

The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2

Psychological terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an individual in a way that leaves no physical scars but leaves psychological injuries or trauma that have long-lasting impact.


Discrimination, bullying or harassment of any kind will not be tolerated by the Company and all allegations of such behaviour will be dealt with seriously, confidentially and speedily.


Within a previous MarineSeismicSurvey (MSS) blog  post article, Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part One: The Ambush Meeting (Part 1), the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter, was discussed. The 24 July 201 Ambush Letter scheduled another meeting for 11 September 2013.  Of all the dates to choose to eliminate the American (USA) foreign worker, 9-11 was chosen as a meeting date with all its emotional symbolism.  Minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting had been requested right after the event.  These important minutes chronicling a distressing event were denied, but I pressed for something firm in writing. That was how the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter came about. Almost six-weeks following the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, a letter was finally delivered to me.  What was never answered in the interim or within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was how the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting conformed to the UK-England company written policy, procedures, and of course contract and employment law.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter actually raised similar concerns once it was received. 

The copy of the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter scanned and referenced in this article was received through my submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014.  The UK company is an affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company (NGSUK). NGSUK personal data processors within the human resources (HR) group are processing this 24 July 201 Ambush Letter.  Unfortunately, there are many problems with the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. It would serve as the impetus for my submitting a lengthy workplace grievance on 20 September 2013.  However, the most immediately visible problem with the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter when I received it as part of my official NGSUK personnel file documentation is that the mentioned scheduled 11 September 2013 (my 9-11) meeting actually never happened!  The same HR manager who hosted the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting of questionable propriety and intentionally withheld the requested meeting minutes from me, also prevented the submission of a grievance soon after the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, and also cancelled and rescheduled the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013, as the 18 September 2013 e-mail indicates. The same HR Manager was now overseeing my SAR a year later. I did submit a 20 September 2013 formal grievance, but this document is not being processed within the body of my personnel file records. However, the 20 September 2013 formal grievance is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with the Norwegian geo-services company (NGS). NGS’ HR departments subsequent processing of defamatory fake data is a sinister form of blacklisting. Both are not compliant nor legal acts, but were the coordinated endeavor of the corrupt and evil NGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by NGS / NGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!

The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to NGSUK policy and procedures? Within the pages of the submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance, I had made the case that the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting did not conform to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK contract and employment law. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance had focused on the propriety and the participants of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting as well as countering the unsubstantiated claims made within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter, since I never had received minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. (This point was made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, as well.) I was also astonished to discover a version of minutes for the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was also being processed within my official PGSUK personnel file. My truthful professional reputation was assassinated on 11 September 2013, an event that never happened to me in reality, but exists as the most significant date within my professional official work history with NGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. NGS / NGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal nor compliant to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK employment and contract law. For some time, I have believed, and collected evidence showing, that I was a victim of a conspiracy to defraud, on top of being a target of severe workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). I have been on a writing campaign for justice since discovering this. However, it is a very difficult endeavor to confront corrupt power and money, especially when so many “professionals” from different companies participated in the alleged crimes against me and my family. Overcoming the banality of corruption and incivility is difficult, especially when those entrusted with corporate governance are the principal perpetrators and facilitators of the crimes.

Make no mistake. Gaslighting is not about love or concern. It’s about power and control. A gaslighter is someone who needs to feel superior and who manipulates people to further their own agendas.

Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D., 7 Ways to Extinguish Gaslighting

Trust yourself. Recognize what they are doing and stay calm. If you know your case, preserved your record, and know why you’re in court today, you are armed. You will correct the record as appropriate and return focus to the important issues for the court and your case. You have prepared and you know what you are doing.

Alyson A. Foster, Gaslighting in Litigation

The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was written on behalf of NGSUK and states that its creation was necessary since I had related that I wanted to pursue the matter officially. To me, this meant according to NGSUK policy, procedures, as well as employment (Tier 2 visa) law and contract law.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter did not address my simple queries.  At the same time, I was helpless to steer events.  It seems that there were two avenues which could have been pursued, based on the NGS UK Office Policy Handbook (NGSUK Handbook).  These were to either follow the NGSUK Handbook grievance procedures or the disciplinary procedures. These would have been the anticipated official routes to be followed.  As was pointed out in Part 1, when disciplinary and grievance matters are related, as was the case here, according to ACAS, the matters can be resolved together.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter also indicated that I would have the opportunity to respond with my case and supporting documentation.  The 20 September 2013 formal grievance, which is not being processed within the body of my personnel file by NGS / NGSUK HR, was my response and contained substantive information countering the claims made during the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. But, my truthful narrative is destroyed.

The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the NGSUK Handbook procedures. NGS / NGSUK had denied me my legal right to follow the grievance process. How was this permitted? With the assistance of my compromised counsel, Philip Landau of LZW Solicitos and Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), representing NGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all NGS / NGSUK, LWZ Solicitors, and WFW legal and HR professionals involved in my SCA termination to show otherwise that the process was compliant and legal. I quite frankly could not figure out what was happening at the time and why all my queries seemed to fall on deaf ears. I never really believed that the process was being carried out correctly, but was being fed misrepresentations from all sides. (WFW had also recently processed my Tier 2 visa leave to remain.) I made countless queries during the negotiations that went unanswered because I had no legal representation. My hired solicitor, Landau, I allege, was complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. This is what I have reported to UK ActionFraud (police). I have also compiled the numerous e-mail communications that confirm that my solicitor was aware of the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013 meeting change. Landau knew that I was a USA citizen and had also received a copy of the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, a copy of the NGSUK Handbook, and NGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepancies should have been noted. However, what especially should have been noted was that my legal right to file a grievance was adhered to. It was not. Instead, false instruments were processed that supported a corrupt disciplinary process used to illegally terminate a whistleblower.

The NGSUK HR Manager was aware that the response to the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter (and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting) would be in the form of a formal grievance prior to the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting.  Therefore, the NGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well.  What is also important to note is that there was a change of NGSUK secretary 13 September 2013.  The new NGSUK secretary assumed the role of secretary and the responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the NGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The NGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The NGSUK Handbook also states NGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures.  Any official route should have implicitly followed NGS Core Values and the NGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the NGSUK Handbook. Nicholson continued to be the main driver of the process even though he was directly implicated in misconduct and bullying through hosting the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. Neither NGSUK seretaries ever contacted me before or following the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. Within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance it was my belief that my nationality and Tier 2 visa status had elevated the destructive behaviors to harassment of a protected class, or illegal harassment. My Tier 2 visa status was a very important consideration which seemed to be ignored.

Indeed, most of those surveyed for the report identified employer retaliation and not being taken seriously as the most common barriers to taking complaints to employers

Muneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address

First, his silence may be taken as consent to whatever has been said to him, as an implied admission. This inference arises where a denial would be expected if the statement was false. Here silence operates rather like a nod; it is as if the party did not think it worth while lasting words in assenting to what he and the speaker know is obvious.


Subsequent debates have argued the fine print over whether these individuals are actually psychopaths, or sociopaths, or have another mental disorder, called narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever the name of their conditions, they create chaos.  They have no capacity to see or respect the perspective of others, are completely disrespectful, and many of them prop themselves up with a sadistic addiction to diminishing others.

Jenny Luesby, How Toxic Bosses Destroy Companies

Perpetrators actively, though often covertly, seek to harm others–physically, emotionally, and spiritually, using tactics designed to
injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.

Burgess, Garbarino, & Carlson, 2006

20 September 2013 Delivered Grievance

Contents, Preamble, Key Points and Summary

As the NGSUK Handbook header indicates, NGSUK HRM prepared the NGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents.  The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by NGSUK HRM, as well.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of NGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is also signed by only the NGSUK HRM. Nothing is countersigned by the employee (me) or his supervisor. The exception is a Memo dated 25 October 2013, when Landau was engaged as my solicitor. NGSUK HRM did not sign this Memo, but neither did I. None of these documents are authenticated or substantiated by documentation and are therefore defamatory. I did not work directly for any of the directors, secretary, HR department, or division Executive Vice-President (EVP). The documents relate uncorroborated events, wrong dates, and non-existent documents. They are all forgeries. Further, no NGS / NGSUK, WFW, or LZW agent has ever challenged or commented on the allegations that the documents are forgeries in over three-years of protected public disclosure – whistleblowing. No definitive answer nor clarification has ever been provided as to the propriety of 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting  or 24 July 2013 Ambush Meeting following multiple queries, including NGS Compliance. NGS, Landau, and WFW uttered false instruments to process my termination from employment with NGSUK.

This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct.  Said another way, NGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels.  NGSUK continued to obstruct my ability and right under UK employment law to complain!  My queries were simple and reasonable. They could have been addressed easily. The NGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees.  The NGSUK Handbook notes the importance of formal and informal lines of communication, especially between the employee and their immediate supervisor.  The grievance procedure discusses provisions where the immediate supervisor is the focus of the grievance or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor.  In this case, the grievance should be raised with the employee’s supervisor’s superior. As for any disciplinary actions, such matters must be fully investigated and focused on a fair resolution.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter stated management’s intention to investigate the possibility of  implementing a performance improvement plan.  But, what was the predicate for NGSUK’s directors and secretary intervention prior to any completed investigation or addressing the central concern as to the propriety of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting

These behaviors seem to model the behaviors of workplace harassment, mobbing, and bullying, inclusive of manipulative gaslighting, as described in literature. They seem to model non-compliant and criminal behaviors. NGSUK manipulated the processes to force a desired outcome. This included blocking all avenues of legal redress through adopting an official route that is not included within the NGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and uttering forged instruments. Legally guaranteed processes were not permitted and choices were limited to the employee so that management could achieve their “win” in this nefarious end game. This end game included co-opting a truthful professional narrative with a fabrication of events. This end game included the symbolic elimination of the American from their workforce on my 9-11. It was all psychological terrorism. It involved illegality, the denial of my human rights and rights under contract and employment law, which were all documented within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance. Most troubling is the witnessing of the death of professionalism and civility and the revelation of weak characters that found sadistic pleasure in abusing their power. Many, many NGS / NGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore NGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. NGS / NGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. NGS’s dumbfounded Norwegian management and board should have thought twice before lodging their despicable terrorist attack on an American focused on justice. Truth is very strong. Poor management is weak and soon runs out of resources. Weak NGS management- management built upon the “sands” of deception – and board of directors attacked me and my family and now these “leaders” hide from their actions and accountability. Pathetic. Even more pathetic is the employee ranks who allow such depraved leadership to remain unaccountable to a Code of Practice or Responsibility Report and functional corporate governance.

In essence, the psyche constantly returned to scenes of unpleasure because, by restaging the traumatic moment over and over again, it hoped belatedly to process the unassimilable material, to find ways of mastering the trauma retroactively


Privilege, or immunity, is also a defense against a claim of defamation. Qualified privilege is usually used in cases where the person communicating the statement has a “legal, moral, or social duty to make it….” The person making the statement must show that he or she has made the statement in good faith, believing it to be true and that the statement was made without malice. One example of qualified privilege is the immunity of members of the press from defamation charges for statements made in the press in good faith unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.

Qualified Privilege as a Defense in a Defamation Case


The Sound of Death?

The Sound of Death?

Whaling was the oil business of its day..

Nathaniel Philbrick

The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot.

Criss Jami, Killosophy

The objective of marine seismic surveys is not to annoy, harm or kill cetaceans or other marine fauna.  I believe that this is an important consideration.  This was not always the relationship between human energy needs and cetaceans.  Cetaceans, or whales, are divided into two main groups: toothed whales and baleen whales.  From the 16th through the 19th century, whales were principally killed for a source of oil used as fuel in lamps.  Although the relative value of various whale products varied across time and place, whale oil was the principal economic driver of the commercial whaling industry.  The efficient killing and processing of whales was the business objective of the commercial whaling industry.  Technological developments in whaling, such as ship speed, determined which cetaceans could be hunted commercially.  There was a precipitous decline in the use of whale oils from its peak in the 19th century into the 20th century that coincides with the commercial development of the petroleum industry as a source of fuel oil and manufacturing products.  Perhaps the petroleum industry saved the lives of thousands of cetaceans and prevented the extinction of several species?  What is known is that as the source of the commodity of whale oil began to deplete, technologies to improve hunting success, as well as incentives to replace the fuel both grew. 

The objective of marine seismic surveys is to create maps of the geology to guide oil and gas drilling operations.  Seismic reflection data is used to produce these maps.  The seismic reflection method requires introducing a controlled seismic energy source into the Earth.  Each layer within the Earth reflects a portion of the wave’s energy back and allows the rest to refract through.  In the marine environment, the these reflected compressional energy waves, or sound waves, are recorded by receivers.  The points being mapped are the midpoints between the source and receiver sensor(s).  In the 1950s, marine seismic research crews would toss boxes of live dynamite off the stern of the vessel. The dynamite would explode about a hundred meters behind the ship.  This was the seismic source.  One of the crew, Stephen Chelminski, recognized how dangerous this practice was and so endeavored to find a better and safer marine seismic source.  Lives were being lost and property destroyed using the dynamite source tossed from the vessel stern.  Chelminski earned the coveted Kauffman Gold Medal Award in 1975 in recognition for his development of marine seismic airgun technology.  The most common energy source used for marine seismic surveys these days are arrays of specially placed and timed airguns.  However, in recent years, marine seismic airguns have become especially controversial due to their perceived impact on the health and well-being of cetaceans.

Technology and Methods Designed to Kill Cetaceans
Airgun Technology Designed to Aid in the Mapping of the Marine Subsurface

Whaling was banned in many countries in 1969 because some species of cetacean were near extinction.  Globally, the commercial whaling industry was essentially ended in the late 1980s.  In 1982 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) placed a moratorium on commercial whaling.  The purpose of the IWC is the conservation and safeguarding of cetaceans and other marine mammals to allow the recovery of pre-industrial whaling levels.  However, countries such as Norway, Iceland, and Japan oppose the IWC moratorium and support commercial whaling.  Aboriginal whaling is allowed to continue on a subsistence basis but not as a commercial activity.  There has been a paradigm shift from whales being regarded as a commercial commodity to becoming a spectacle.  Over the past few decades, whale watching has become a significant industry in its own.  In some countries whale watching has replaced whaling, while in others the two industries coexist.  The marine seismic airgun opponents view cetaceans as spectacles that need to be protected and preserved.  Whalers see cetaceans as a commodity.  The cultural battle grounds are in place around the world, from the protesting of marine seismic surveys offshore the east coast of the United States to The Great Australian Bight in Australia.  Airguns are currently the best energy source to use to accomplish survey objectives.  At the same time, the marine seismic survey commercial industry is relatively new and much is still unknown about its long-term impact on cetaceans and other marine animals.  Marine seismic surveyors endeavor to take measures and develop technologies to minimize the impact of their methods and equipment, such as airguns, on cetaceans, and other marine animals to satisfy customer requirements, but whose principal objective concern is analyzing and processing seismic, and other geophysical data, to produce useful maps that will reduce drilling risks. 

The [oil and gas] industry is slow to change, But certainly, I’ll be happy when it happens.

Stephen Chelminski, Geophysicist who DEveloped AIRGUN TECHNOLOGY and is currently working on marine vibrator technology

For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.

Margaret Heffernan

As a young man, I took a trip to Seattle, Washington, USA.  In some bookshop I saw a pin that read, “Save the whales, what did the cows do wrong?”  I have been on many whale watching trips and enjoyed rare occasions of seeing cetaceans from the seismic vessels that I worked on.  I was raised and lived my younger adult life in the western US.  From this vantage point, void of any tangible socio-economic or cultural ties to whaling, whales were simply magnificent marine life visible without having to dawn scuba gear.  Cattle, on the other hand, defines the American west.  Cinema and television have glorified the rancher cowboy and cattle driver.  Cattle may roam the land of the American west, but they do so as property with “brands.”  Cattle are bred for beef, and another bred for dairy.  Beef and Dairy are traded commodities, and their population controlled through market demand.  In the US west, much of the Federal government land is leased to ranchers to graze their cattle.  Ranching and dairy production are commercial industries.  Cattle were not native to North America.  Prior to the (predominantly) European colonial conquest and expansion into western North America, bison – or buffalo – grazed the plains and grasslands.  These nomadic Native North American peoples subsisted on bison.  However, the commercial hunting of bison took the 60 million precolonial bison population to under 1000 in the late 19th century.  Private reserves and US Federal intervention prevented the extinction of the bison.  Bison population is only a small percentage of precolonial numbers.  Domestic cattle have taken over the rangeland.

Parties to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) disagree about the necessity for continuing the moratorium on the commercial hunting of whales.  In fact, some believe that commercial whaling can be good for managing cetacean populations.  Whalers recognized that over-whaling has a negative impact on profits.  So, economic self-interest ultimately led whalers to take action to conserve the resource upon which they depended.  However, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and other nations supported the moratorium on whaling, not because the need to allow for more time for cetacean population recovery and management, but because certain nations believe whales have a right to life.  And with any moratorium on seismic airgun testing, cetaceans have the right to a pleasant life.  This position is no longer a strictly environmental viewpoint, it is an ethical viewpoint.  The same young man who visited the bookshop in Seattle, also was an avid hiker and backpacker who lived in New Mexico and loved The Land of Enchantment.  In fact, I was a member of the environmental group, The Sierra Club.  The Sierra Club is known for encouraging an appreciation for nature and the environment through sponsoring and leading hikes through such areas.  In fact, I led some hikes as a member of the local chapter of the club.  Because cattle can be grazed on Federal government land, which is also land which could be used for hiking, hikers would often encounter cattle and or their excrement along the trails. 

As a hiker, I didn’t like to encounter domesticated excrement.  At the same time, I was not bothered at all to spot a deer or bighorn sheep or come across their scat.  At some point, I made a decision to become a vegetarian.  My reasoning was that if I did not want to encounter cattle poop, I could not support the industry that used the same land I enjoyed for hiking to make hamburgers an affordable food choice.  I want to add that I also ran into hunters on these trails during certain times of the year.  I always felt that hunters had a better appreciation for the environment than many environmentalists did.  Food chains need predators, and many had been killed by ranchers or other livestock owners who had a commercial interest in protecting their cattle population.  Hunters at least understand that meat doesn’t just pop-up cellophane wrapped.  It was a living creature once.  And here is my ethical dilemma with saving the whales: whales at least are free range.  Fish populations, such as northeast North America cod, have also been overfished.  Wild fish stocks have been depleted through overfishing globally and have been replaced with fish farms.  Cattle are grazed and then sent to feedlots to be fattened-up prior to slaughter.  Chicken and pigs are factory farmed.  The short lives of these creatures prior to slaughter is cruel and deplorable.  But, out of sight, out of mind.  The point is, eating KFC is likely a less ethical food choice than eating whale, if you examine the quality of life of the creature prior its being killed.  What can’t be lost is that chicken tends to also be some of the cheapest meat to buy. 

We know, at least, that this decision (ending factory farming) will help prevent deforestation, curb global warming, reduce pollution, save oil reserves, lessen the burden on rural America, decrease human rights abuses, improve public health, and help eliminate the most systematic animal abuse in history..

Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals

Humans regard animals as worthy of protection only when they are on the verge of extinction.,

Paul Craig Roberts

Modern human lifestyle consumes vast amounts of energy.  Coal fueled the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th century and powered the steam engine.  Steam engines had more to do with the demise and near extinction of both cetaceans and bison.  Faster whaling ships, coupled with both onshore and offshore processing of carcasses, made killing whales too easy – to the point that some species neared extinction.  Oil became the dominant fuel in the 20th century and remains so today.  Offshore crude oil accounts for around 30% of the global demand for oil.  According to Wikipedia, raising animals for human consumption accounts for approximately 40% of the total amount of agricultural output in industrialized countries. Grazing occupies 26% of the earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface, and feed crop production uses about one third of all arable land.  The human footprint has expanded and destroyed many natural habitats and taken a number of creatures to, or near the brink of, extinction, not only cetaceans.  The real question that needs to be addressed is what lifestyle choices of convenience are we really willing to give-up?  The majority of humans enjoy having electricity to keep all of our appliances going.  This includes our cell phones and laptop computers, as well as our refrigerators to keep food cold.  It includes our food choices.  Many humans enjoy the convenience of automobiles and airplane travel.  Saving the whales – or prioritizing their collective welfare – does not really make one an environmentalist.  There is a litany of lifestyle choices that contribute to our energy consumption that impacts the planet.  You cannot really be for saving the whales if you enjoy eating hamburgers bought at a drive-through window.

If there were no customers for offshore oil, there would be no marine seismic – or other geophysical – exploration.  There would be no need for airguns.  So, yes, let’s improve how energy is consumed.  Let’s explore and develop renewable energy resources where we can.  And let’s continue to improve the sources used in the marine seismic experiment.  Let’s try to minimize the impact that exploring for resources offshore makes.  Let’s improve our monitoring of cetaceans and make sure that airguns are not used when cetaceans are nearby.  Let’s continue to develop marine seismic vibrator’s as sources.  Marine seismic airguns have not really been used so long.  The real impact on the different species of cetaceans is not fully understood.  Nevertheless, concerns must be listened to and addressed.  Those in the marine seismic industry, or offshore oil and gas industry, are not focused on destroying the environment or in harming cetaceans.  That’s not the objective.  The objective is to make better maps so that drilling is safer and less risky.  Protesting over activities that you do not agree with is important for citizens.  But, protesting offshore activity is only meaningful when it is accompanied by a supporting lifestyle choice.  Protesting airguns will only make a difference if your personal lifestyle choices do not include the necessity for offshore oil.  And when this is true, marine airgun exploration will be unnecessary.

Man’s law changes with his understanding of man. Only the laws of the spirit remain always the same..

Native American Crow Tribe Saying

Forests and meat animals compete for the same land. The prodigious appetite of the affluent nations for meat means that agribusiness can pay more than those who want to preserve or restore the forest. We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet – for the sake of hamburgers,

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation

« Older posts Newer posts »