Spread the love

Pretending Equinor has a functional corporate governance is corruption

Articles about Norway’s Equinor (StatOil) Corrupt Chairman of the Board, Jon Erik Reinhardsen

As President and CEO of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Jon Erik Reinhardsen allowed shareholder value to decline and never defended the reputation of the company by invoking contract Confidentiality clauses. Why? Jon Erik Reinhardsen and his supportive board of directors participated in violent and criminal retaliation against a USA citizen whistleblower. Reinhardsen lied to governments in Norway, UK, USA and now Thailand to evade responsibility. A corrupt Norwegian political – executive class are protected and overpaid at the expense of the average citizen and worker. If I am lying, Reinhardsen could invoke the terms of a contract. But, since 2015, this piece of shit has been allowed to abuse my family and rob Norwegians. Jon Erik Reinhardsen should be in jail. Only corruption and inept management explains Equinor losing $20 BILLION USD for USA operations. Remember, one of Reinhardsen’s FIRST decisions as StatOil Chairman of the Board was to give StatOil CEO Eldar Sætre a big raise.

“Eldar has done a very impressive job,” Statoil’s chairman Jon Erik Reinhardsen told newspaper Dagens Næringsliv (DN) over the weekend. That’s how he justified granting Sætre, who helped Statoil get through the industry crisis set off by the collapse in oil prices three years ago, an extraordinary pay raise of 7 percent, to bring his base pay before bonus up to NOK 8.76 million a year (USD 1.12 million).

Statoil boss gets a big raise, News in English.no (14 October 2017)
What Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts (30 April 2017)
When Human Resources is Corrupt (10-August-2015)

Steven,
I am writing to you in a personal capacity, and only about the material you have posted online about me.  I am not writing as a representative of PGS.  I have no authority to discuss any material you have posted online about PGS or other individuals, nor to discuss your employment / data protection dispute with PGS.

This statement is not true. Carl Richards was acting Secretary for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Richards not only has the authority, but the fiduciary duty to protect the interests PGS and its agents. Richards should have invoked the terms and conditions of either the SCA or OEC if there were a breach. On the other hand, I do not think that an acting secretary can legally make a claim as an individual. This would be false representation.

 When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.

Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary was first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.

You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me.  I understand that you reside in Thailand.  I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm  (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me).  My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017.  They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.

SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?

I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty.  However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.

SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.

I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms.  If you do this then I will take the matter no further.

Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.

SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.

17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never

s

to Protect Himself and other PGS ASA corrupt executives from addressiing protected public disclosure claims – whistleblowing – in a legal and compliant manner according the laws of England and PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook policy.

Qualified Privilege as a Defense in a Defamation Case

Articles which were provided to PGS Compliance directly for consideration were ignored:

 When we worked together, our relationship was always courteous, so I am disappointed to see the material about me in your online postings, including (but not limited to) your article “Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary” and also the various images I attach here, some of which have been distributed on various social media platforms.

Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary was first published 24 February 2018. Richards is licensed to practice law in England and our contracts of employment are governed by the laws of England, per the PGS UK Office Personnel Handbook, which expounds on Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of content that disparages PGS or any PGS stakeholders, such as himself! I have accused PGS agents of criminal wrong-doing which is legally protected public disclosure, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Also, certain disclosures were published 3 July 2015 – 24 February 2017. Defamation claims can only be made within one year of the offending publication, according to the UK Limitations Act 1980. Richards did not specify which content was defamatory.

You will understand that I can’t accept having this kind of material posted about me.  I understand that you reside in Thailand.  I therefore came to Bangkok last week and sought advice from a Thai law firm  (i.e. for me personally, not for PGS, and only in relation to the material you have posted about me).  My Thai lawyers advised that the material you have posted about me is defamatory, and in particular contravenes Thailand’s Computer Crime Act of 2017.  They have advised me on the enforcement process, and they are standing by should it be necessary for me to follow that process.

SDK nopgs,com published content was pertinent to Richards role as Company secretary and would not be outside the scope of the OEC or SCA. There is no limit in time for claims citing breaches in the contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which have a much lower legal threshold to prove than defamation. Further, how would a Thai law firm have any idea what material was defamatory? SDK states publications are whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is legally protected. Whistleblowers do not need to be correct, but only reasonably believe that the allegations are correct?

I still wish you no ill-will whatsoever, and do not wish to cause you any difficulty.  However, you will understand that I absolutely cannot permit my professional reputation to be damaged in this way.

SDK believes that he and his family are victims of crime and abuse perpetrated by Richards and other PGS agents. Richards should have invoked the Confidentiality terms and conditions in 2015, PGS is trying to avoid the English legal system.

I am therefore asking you (in the same courteous manner that we had previously dealt with each other) to delete all references to me on your nopgs.com site, and to delete all postings with links or images featuring from your various social media platforms.  If you do this then I will take the matter no further.

Richards never specified content he wanted unpublished. However, I would not cooperated in removing any content which had been already sent directly to PGS Compliance. Also, SDK wanted to comply with the OEC and SCA provisions governed by the laws of England.

SDK requested that Richards provide proof of identity for further discussion. Richards did not respond. SDK ceased publications for a period of time and then resumed.

17 May 2018, SDK received an e-mail from a Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee. Duensing – Kippen also reiterated that they were not representing PGS ASA. SDK similarly requested for ID and stated to Duensing – Kippen that my posts were whistleblowing and that PGS already had contractual/legal remedies to address SDK publications. In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered criminal legal claims for both PGS AND Carl Richards to the home of SDK relatives in Thailand. Both Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen had never

Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes

Dec 5, 2014

from:Steven Kalavity
to:Laura Haswell <Laura.Haswell@pgs.com>
cc:David Nicholson <David.Nicholson@pgs.com>
date:Dec 5, 2014, 7:16 AM
subject:Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes
mailed-by:gmail.com

PGS UK Data Controller,

Please confirm receipt of this email.

The forty day period for compliance of my Subject Access Request (SAR) has now passed.  I do not believe that there has been complete compliance, but I will defer to ICO guidance on how to proceed.

I have not received information regarding who directly has processed my personal data, who has had access to the different personal data stored, who has been provided with my personal data, or for what reasons. 

I applied for different roles while within PGS, especially during the time I was with Marine Contract – Africa.  Please provide me with discussions/outcomes from these applications.

I printed four copies of my grievance to present personally during the scheduled meeting.  I distributed the hard copies them to the meeting attendees:  John Barnard (my witness), David Nicholson, and Eddy Von Abendorff.  I also e-mailed copies to Simon Cather, Per Arild Reksnes, and John Greenway.

The grievance was principally in regard to the unfair and inaccurate processing of my personal data.  I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 was violated when PGS did not allow correction of this data and continued to publish and disseminate the incorrect information.

During settlement discussions I requested disputed information removed and PGS UK refused this request.

PGS UK has provided only a select number of communications from limited data processors and not undeleted or recovered from back-up other electronic mails and records.

Hardcopy records (i.e., date books, other) have not been provided or mentioned.

Further, the Settle Agreement, Clause 9.7 establishes that PGS will endeavor not to publish any disparaging or harmful information about me.

I have communicated with ICO for guidance on how to proceed. 

Even though the disputed information was brought to PGS UK attention over a year ago through my grievance, ICO allows data controllers to address and correct (remove) inaccurate information.

Since I do not believe that I have received all my personal data that PGS UK holds, I will address the information in my personnel file.

For clarity, can PGS UK please confirm the order of the documents provided to me in two (2) packages as to how the information is presented and who has access to which portions?

With regard to the HRIS copy, can you please provide time-tagged copies (2 month interval) of the file to confirm how and when changes were made?

I am following the order provided to which the data was provided to me.   Please address these changes within 28 days.

Please address why this data was retained and created.

File Section 1:

Need to add eligible for rehire (as written in your recent e-mail). 

Memo dated 25-October-2013 – Conclusions from Grievance Hearing should be removed from the file. 

  • This document was never presented to me, yet it is referenced to my attention.
    • No signature or acknowledgement/agreement from me regarding content.
  • PGS offered me the settlement to STOP the grievance process (prior to this meeting, in fact).
  • Also, my solicitor, which I was prompted to engage after you made the offer, indicated PGS would prefer the settlement to proceeding with the grievance so they WOULD NOT have to respond.
  • The grievance process was not CONCLUDED – it was just not continued due to PGS UK’s offer of a settlement agreement.
  • The minutes and record from this meeting are not sufficient given the gravity of the issue to the data subject.  Many important and substantive points are missing. 
  • More likely, I would have not accepted a PIP and would have appealed this conclusion and gone to tribunal, per ACAS provisions.
  • There is no presentation of evidence to indicate a thorough analysis.
  • There is no presentation of data that counter any of my issues brought-up within my grievance.
  • It accepts and amplifies the malicious and defamatory statements that are backed by no substantive evidence. 
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
  • This also is not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting publication of disparaging remarks.

Omitted:  My grievance document that challenges allegations with supporting evidence.  (Omitted okay as long as with the other documents that inspired it.)  The document provided does not include the pages of evidence that support my disagreement.  Why is not the complete document provided?

Also, I remember a yellow-highlighted copy of my grievance being reference when the settlement was offered.  Is this the document copied?

I provided hard copies to you, Eddy and John.  Where are they?

Letter to me (SDK) 24 July 2013 – Investigation for Possible Implementation of Performance Improvement Plan – Should be removed

  • This letter was provided to me after HR refusal to present me with minutes of an “informal meeting” where these allegations were first made.
  • This letter without my response (grievance) included suggests some sort of agreement or concession of these claims.  My file contains no meetings or emails that corroborate any of these statements.  In fact, these statements are both malicious and defamatory.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.

Meeting 25-June-2013 summary – Should be removed

Meeting 9-June-2013 summary – Should be removed

  • This was an informal meeting.
  • I was called to the meeting with no warning or time to prepare.
  • This meeting did not follow PGS policy or procedures.
  • I asked for clarification about how this meeting conformed with PGS policy and was refused.
  • I was also refused minutes of the meeting to contest.  Instead, I was provided a letter which prompted my response.  Yes, I did believe the minutes needed to be written so that I could have the opportunity to contest the (unsupported) allegations.
  • I do not agree with these minutes and believe they conflate meetings and correspondence which occurred between the meeting and my grievance.
  • Allegations are not supported by any documentation.  In a fair and accurate process, these allegations should have been substantiated:
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be quantified.  I included this in my grievance.  It was never provided in the meeting. 
    • Responsible and fair HR Management should have verified and clarified claims made as fact.
    • Commercial acumen was never defined and purely a (malicious) unqualified opinion.
    • Meeting and instruction were cited, but not supported by written record.  In fact, they never happened.
    • The GAP analysis meeting(s) mentioned with Manager are not corroborated by notes or details, and in fact never happened.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed this.
    • PIP was never discussed during meeting, move to another work assignment was mentioned.
    • Quality of work – no record of meetings or specific instances.  In fact, there seems to be no reduction in work given to me as mentioned in grievance.
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be corroborated with evidence.  It never was.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed and clarified this.  Workload distribution evidence was included within my grievance/reply.
  • I was not provided an impartial witness during the meeting to corroborate the minutes.
  • I do not agree with many of the contents of this letter.
  • My Grievance documents go into detail about the many disagreements.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks/information.
  • Why was there no validation by HR (UK/Norway) of the contested statements made as fact and to my personal detriment?
  • I believe that this is a violation of the DPA.
  • The documents inclusion into my personal personnel record is prejudicial and disparaging and violates the terms of the settlement agreement, as well.

GAP Analysis – Should be removed.   Note, I asked for its removal during settlement talks and was refused.

  • No supporting documentation to give meaning and context.
  • The Gap Analysis is not supported by any tangible data.
  • It mostly indicates disagreement, but no basis of disagreement (what was measured?)
  • No supporting documentation that indicates any effort to resolve the Gap.
  • The denial to provide how the Gap is defined or can be filled makes this document irrelevant.
  • EvA references meeting, but no evidence is provided to substantiate.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.

Omissions – Supporting documentation

  • There is no record of meetings, advice, or elaboration about my deficiencies referenced in the meeting.  Did the meeting ever happen?  Did you confirm, if so why isn’t there supporting documentation? 
  • Documents about my temporary living, and trip to England, etc. can be removed because the information is dated not really useful or relevant to my professional file

.Section 2:

  • Tax reference info if needed.  Most all else can be removed as no longer valid.  (i.e., passport copies)

Section 3:

Section 4:

  • Omission – Email from Maggie Bream regarding my health check following my 5-day absence.
Dealing with workplace stress – your legal rights
Typical causes of work-related stress are an overload of work, bullying, lack of support and a bad working environment.
Stress at work – Landau Law

Section 5:

  • Replace with current CV.  I have provided several updated versions for internal vacancies.

DPA 1998 – Grievance Challenge to Information Processing 20-Sep-13

Dec 6, 2014

from:Steven Kalavity 
to:Laura Haswell <Laura.Haswell@pgs.com>
cc:David Nicholson <David.Nicholson@pgs.com>
date:Dec 6, 2014, 12:02 PM
subject:DPA 1998 – Grievance Challenge to Information Processing 20-Sep-13
mailed-by:gmail.com

PGS UK Data Controller –
I was unambiguous within my grievance document, submitted 20-Sep-2013, that I challenged the fairness and accuracy of information processed about me.
Printed copies were provided to Eddy Von Abendorff, David Nicholson, and John Barnard.
Copies were emailed the these individuals as well, and also to Simon Cather, Per Arilde Reksnes, Terje Bjolseth, and John Greenway.
Reference contents of email below.
Regards,Steven Kalavity

From: “Steven Kalavity” <Steven.Kalavity@pgs.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 14:57
Subject: KALAVITY – Form of Grievance
To: “David Nicholson” <
David.Nicholson@pgs.com>, “Eddy Von Abendorff” <Eddy.Von.Abendorff@pgs.com>, “john.barnard@pgs.com” <john.barnard@pgs.com>
Cc: “Simon Cather” <
simon.cather@pgs.com>, “Per Arild Reksnes” <Per.Arild.Reksnes@pgs.com>, “John Greenway” <John.Greenway@pgs.com>, “Terje Bjølseth” <Terje.Bjolseth@pgs.com>

Good afternoon,

This afternoon I am attending a meeting scheduled for 3 p.m. (UK time) with David Nicholson, HR Manager EAME, and my immediate supervisor, Eddy Von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa to respond to a letter regarding my professional performance.  I have also invited my co-worker, John Barnard, Contract Sales Supervisor – Africa to attend.

I have prepared my response in the Form of Grievance document (attached) to initiate the grievance procedure.

Best regards,
Steven

Attachment: 20130920_KALAVITY-Grievance-2-5.pdf

KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided

Dec 19, 2014

from:Steven Kalavity 
to:Laura Haswell <Laura.Haswell@pgs.com>
cc:David Nicholson <David.Nicholson@pgs.com>
date:Dec 19, 2014, 9:02 PM
subject:KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided
mailed-by:gmail.com

PGS UK Data Processor/Controller:
In my personnel file there is a Memo written/signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes.
First of all, I never received this Memo (to my attention?) until recently when it was sent to me by my SAR / UK DPA 1998.
Note the three referenced documents:1) Meeting 11 September 20132) Your letter of 29 September 20133) Meeting 14 October 2013
I have not received these referenced items. 


Item 3:
I think this is reference to the Norway – UK teleconference meeting.
No minutes of this grievance hearing are provided.  My witness/co-worker John Barnard attended (to verify what was said/discussed).  He is not copied on these minutes.  Simon Cather and David Nicholson did not attend this meeting.


Item 2:Your letter?  I do not know what letter is being referenced.  Perhaps a letter from DN/SC?  I have not been provided with this document.


Item 1:I do not know anything about this meeting.  It was not with me.  I have not been provided with minutes of this meeting.
The point is, information has been referenced and processed but has not been provided to me through my SAR request.
Please explain.

Regards,Steven

###