ATTN: Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Chairman; Gottfred Langseth, Director; Christin Steen-Nilsen, Director; Kevin M. Hart, Secretary; Corina Maria Ragazzo, Secretary; Robert Johnson, Treasurer
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.:
My name is Steven Kalavity (SDK). SDK is a USA citizen who worked with several of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (now PGS ASA, “PGS”) subsidiaries from 2000 – 2013. SDKs first assignment with PGS was in Houston, Texas (PGSUS). When SDK worked globally for PGS, Houston, Texas, USA, remained SDKs home of record for USA federal purposes, such as voting. However, SDK spent very little actual time in Texas over the years working globally for PGS. SDKs home of record for PGS while working on vessels and remote data processing centers was Thailand. SDKs final assignment was with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) as part of the Contract Sales – Africa group from September 2010 to December 2013. SDK was sponsored on a Tier 2 work visa by PGSUK which allowed him to work and live in England with his family. At the time of SDKs signing a termination settlement contract agreement (SCA) in December 2013, the directors of both PGSUK and PGSUS were Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth and Christin Steen-Nilsen. SDKs SCA included provisions for relocation expenses to Houston, Texas. SDK was the only one of the Thai-USA family who had actually lived in Houston. SDKs family departed England 24 December 2013. According to records, this was one day following PGS’ board of directors had signed their commitment for PGS to abide by the Principles of the UN Global Compact. As CEO and President of PGS, Reinhardsen highlighted this commitment within a letter to PGS stakeholders.
PGS has refused to confirm the employer / agency of employee Gareth Jones, especially from the period of between 1 June – 31 December 2014. This withholding of information is an obstruction of justice. In October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) to PGS / PGSUK citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) so as to receive copies of the personal data that PGS / PGSUK was processing relevant to SDK. UK (England) Data Controllers, such as employers, are legally obligated to abide by DPA Principles. As a USA citizen who worked under contract in England governed by the laws of England, DPA compliance formed part of the employment contract.
Subject data must not be transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection
uk data protection act 1998 (DPA), eighth Principle
It is implied that the legal and contractual DPA Principles 1-7 are being adhered to by the data controller. For the record, the USA does not form part of the EEA. One of the considerations for subject data transfer outside the USA is whether the data subject has consented to such a transfer of their personal data. What SDK discovered once receiving copies of personal data being processed by PGS / PGSUK was inaccurate and defamatory personal data. Obviously, SDK would not consent to this and it is otherwise illegal. Most notably, contents of SDKs professional personnel file contained several documents not signed by nor verified by the data subject. Most were signed or endorsed solely by the PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson. SDK did not work for Nicholson nor HR and Nicholson possesses no direct knowledge of SDKs work, i.e., Nicholson did not / does not possess any qualified privilege with respect to his authored content. PGS HR Manager Nicholson (retired in shame) solely signed/endorsed SDK personnel file content which is both fraudulent anddefamatory.
The legal standard for documents populating one’s personnel file throughout SDKs entire working life, up to my experience with PGS, had always been a required employee verification (not necessarily agreement) of all documents being processed within their personnel file. In other words, documents held within personnel files require the signature of the data subject. However, in SDKs case, every document of consequence held within SDKs personnel file bore no subject (SDK) signature! Regardless of whether or not there was a PGS violation of DPA Principle 8, tenured HR staff should have easily recognized that SDK personnel file data did not comply with the most basic HR legal standards. The documents being processed are illegal. There is no way to verify the accuracy of SDKs personal data without a counter-signature. E-mail records contradict the content of the forged and defamatory documents endorsed by Nicholson. Also, SDKs employment was terminated by the SCA. One of the provisions of signing the SCA was a letter by my former employer, PGS, for reference in SDKs search for new employment. The letter was predicated on the contents of SDKs professional personnel file, which contains a copy of the SCA. So, regardless of any violation of DPA Principle 8, the contents of SDKs personnel file were implicitly shared with PGSUS for the explicit purpose of being referenced for SDKs employment search in the US / Houston job market. The PGS SDK personnel file document contents are inaccurate and defamatory. The contents violate most every DPA principle and also seem to constitute the illegal blacklisting under Texas statute.
Nicholson, along with SDKs immediate supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, PGS VP Contract Sales – Africa, and his supervisor, Simon Cather, PGS Marine Contract Africa Regional President had all been accused of gross misconduct, breaches of SDKs employment contract, bullying / harassment, discrimination, misuse of the performance management system and defamation, etc., within a 20 September 2013 SDK submitted workplace grievance (“Grievance”). The Grievance is referenced within the SCA being processed within SDKs personnel file. However, the copy of the personnel file which was provided to SDK following the 2014 SAR did not include a copy of the Grievance. The contents of the Grievance met the standard of qualified protected disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by both the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) and the Norwegian Working Environment Act 2005/2017 (WEA). This is important because SDK was employed by contract governed by the laws of England. However, the Grievance was delivered to agents of Norway’s PGS which is governed by the laws of Norway. The only document not signed and/or endorsed by Nicholson being processed within SDKs PGS personnel file is a 25 October 2013 memo (Memo) signed by Per Arild Reksnes, PGS Marine Contract EVP and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources, who are not agents of PGSUK. Both Cather and Nicholson are “exonerated” by Reksnes and Bjølseth through this Memo for their multiple abuses of power, misconduct and contract violations that were cited within the Grievance.
Following the receipt of the copies of SDK personal data provided through the SAR late 2014 (2014 SAR), SDK complained vigorously to PGS, of course, but also to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority who oversee data controller personal data processing compliance. On 22 December 2014, a year after having signed the SCA, PGSUK wrote a threatening letter to SDK for disputing the obviously inaccurate and defamatory forged SDK personal data PGS processed and apparently shared outside the EEA, according to a 30 October 2013 email to SDK from Bjølseth. The wire and mail transfer of fraudulent (forged) personal data would constitute the US Federal crimes of mail and wire fraud. As stated before, it serves the data subject to have compliant and accurate personal data sent outside the EEA to the USA to facilitate searching for employment in the USA. However, processing defamatory forged documents in retaliation for blowing the whistle is patently illegal. Also, Nicholson was the principal processor of SDK personal data along with HR employee, Laura Haswell, in spite of the fact that Nicholson had orchestrated and was at the center of the events which brought about and constituted the content of the Grievance. (The 2014 SAR content also revealed communications between Haswell and Jones regarding SDKs impending move to the USA, indicating a global criminal conspiracy by PGS to defraud.) Within the 22 December 2014 letter (Extortion Letter) sent on behalf of PGSUK [Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen] and endorsed/signed by Nicholson, who had been accused of criminal misconduct within the Grievance, PGSUK agreed to alter SDK personal data being processed through the inclusion of SDKs 5 December 2014 complaint e-mail even though the Extortion Letter/email stated otherwise.
Termination of employment by a settlement contract requires that the employee receive counsel by an employment law solicitor. PGS breached SDKs original employment contract (OEC) by proffering a termination settlement contract without proceeding through all of the steps of the legal and contractually mandated grievance procedure. Following SDKs being offered a termination settlement contract, SDK immediately contacted UK (English) employment law solicitor, Philip Landau, who was with Landau Zeffert and Weir Solicitors (LZW) at the time. Landau was provided with a summary of the grievance points and the fact that the SCA was proffered before the grievance procedures outlined within the PGS UK Personnel Handbook had been followed and completed as prescribed by the OEC. Landau should have easily recognized the Grievance as protected disclosure and queried about the terms and conditions of the OEC to determine whether the OEC had been breached. Nevertheless, on 1 November 2013 the negotiations – confidence fraud – commenced for the final terms and conditions of the SCA. PGS engaged legal firm Watson Farley and Williams (WFW) employment solicitor, Rhodri Thomas, to negotiate the final terms and conditions of the SCA. WFW Thomas similarly ignored UK law and PGS policy and procedure to pressure SDK into an uncontested “termination” through a fraudulent SCA. Thus, SDK has concluded that Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton, and WFW were bribed into processing the forged documents to support an illegal termination settlement contract which bypassed SDKs legal right to follow the prescribed grievance procedure to protect the criminals.
The Memo is dated for when Landau represented SDK. The Memo references a canceled meeting which Landau also was informed about. The Memo references a letter by SDK that was never written and in fact does not exist. A legal grievance process must include a written notification of the outcome to the griever, as well as notification that the griever has a right to appeal the decision. The Memo was created to represent SDKs acceptance of an unfavorable outcome to the Grievance agreed to with the guidance of legal counsel. The (forged) Memo does not even reference the actual Grievance nor inform SDK of his legal and contractual right to appeal the Grievance decision. SDKs Grievance recipient and witness, John Barnard, was not included as a recipient of the Memo. Barnard was supposed to ensure the proper proceeding of the legal grievance process. SDK was being terminated through settlement contract by the foregone conclusion that he otherwise would be terminated for performance which was evidenced only by the malicious and unprivileged assessment of an accused criminal, Nicholson (and Cather and von Abendorff). PGS / PGSUK had written to and applied for SDKs Leave to Remain with the UK Border Agency 15 July 2013. On 24 July 2013, Nicholson endorsed a letter (Ambush Letter) written on behalf of PGSUK (Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen) citing apprehension about SDKs performance. The Grievance was SDKs response to the Ambush Letter. The Ambush Letter was PGSUK / PGS frantic attempt to obstruct SDK from beginning the grievance process following what SDK believed was an illegal Ambush Meeting hosted by Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff. PGS / PGSUK were illegally obstructing SDKs legal and contractual right to blow the whistle. PGS / PGSUK were also defrauding UK Border Agency and ICO (and NDPA). LZW Landau/Rushton and WFW Thomas aided and abetted in these frauds.
SDK has known that he was a victim of PGS crimes since receiving the 2014 SAR content. However, the binding nature of settlement agreements combined with the breadth, money, and number of criminal co-conspirators and their agency (WFW and LZW lawyers) has made just resolution much more difficult. The OEC contained Confidentiality clauses that prohibit employees from publishing disparaging content about PGS and its stakeholders (which would include WFW). The SCA also contained mutual Confidentiality clauses that prohibited both SDK and PGS from publishing disparaging content about one another. Of course, the publication / processing of defamatory forged documents was a breach of the SCA. However, this could only be established by first establishing that the SCA itself was fraudulent. It is important to note that not all publication of disparaging content is a breach. Whistleblowing is protected through PIDA/WEA. SDK submitted his first report to the UK police (ActionFraud) 24 August 2015. On 3 July 2015, SDK published An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. On 6 September 2015, SDK published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015). In spite of the threats made within the Extortion Letter months before, PGS took no action. PGS’ responsibility to shareholders was to investigate the whistleblowing claims and then cite a breach in the SCA terms and conditions to stop future publications and safeguard the reputation and value of PGS. PGS remained silent. SDK contacted PGS Compliance Hotline composed of PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke, and Bjølseth (PGS Compliance). PGS Compliance were provided with articles and emails proving that the SCA was illegal, as was SDKs termination from employment for blowing the whistle. PGS Compliance never responded. This was a violation of their fiduciary duty and a furtherance of the damage and fraud to whistleblower SDK and continuation of the intentional deception to the upstream oil and gas industry investors.
In 2016, SDK submitted another SAR to PGS. SDK also submitted SARs to WFW and LZW. (LZW had become Landau Law in early 2014. SDK supposes that this was done to help launder the money received in bribes.) Landau / Rushton never reached out to SDK to warn about or admonish his online publications. PGS and WFW also provided no additional data nor comment regarding SDK online publications. SDK regarded as his publications as legally protected public disclosure. In August 2016 SDK was further defrauded and defamed by PGS. SDK had been publishing his legally protected public disclosure within the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space. PGS again were in breach of the Confidentiality terms and conditions by not investigating whistleblowing claims nor citing a contract breach. Instead, PGS irresponsibly deleted the protected public disclosure and continued their defamation and defrauding of a whistleblower and the industry. SDK was restricted and further defamed on LinkedIn™ through PGS not abiding by the contractual Confidentiality terms. PGS Compliance on two separate occasions during 2016 breached the Confidentiality terms of the SCA. PGS Compliance stated that they had investigated and found no issues. PGS Compliance found no issues with unsigned and unverified documents within a whistleblowers professional personnel file? It was a cover-up which SDK also wrote about prior to being restricted on LinkedIn™, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). What has been most damaging through all of this ordeal is to have witnessed the abject moral weakness and lack of principles of former co-workers who have made the constructive decision to aid and abet evil criminals above victims of their crimes. PGS has expended a lot of resources to deceive the industry. Much of this has been through salary bribes and promotions paid to complicit employees who breach the PGS Code of Conduct and Core Values to damage an innocent victim of crimes and whistleblower along with his family who were also under PGS’ contractual duty of care.
Following SDKs defamatory restriction from LinkedIn™, SDK established nopgs.com to publish his protected disclosure without the constraints of uninformed social media gatekeepers intimidated by corrupt corporate agents. SDK used Twitter™ to continue informing @PGSNews about new publications related to PGS non-compliance. No agent of PGS, WFW, or LZW had ever contacted SDK with regard to the several online publications which exposed PGS non-compliance. In 2018, SDK was living in Thailand. For the first time ever, in April 2018, someone purporting to be affiliated with PGS had something to say about SDKs online publications. Carl Richards was the PGS UK Head of Legal and PGSUK company secretary from 13 September 2013. In other words, Richards was PGSUK secretary at the time the Grievance was delivered. According to 2014 SAR contents, Richards and his associate lawyer, Ben Kelly, had reviewed and approved the final terms and conditions of the SCA (which references the Grievance, unlike the Memo). By 2018, SDK had established that he was a victim of a criminal conspiracy and also began to understand the corporate hierarchy and their accountability. SDK was producing image files which pictured the accused with links to the articles and evidence broadcast through Twitter™. Richards never did verify his identity in fact. Richards seemed especially concerned with the publication, Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018) p112-118and threatened to pursue criminal litigation against SDK as an individual separate from PGS?
In May 2018, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee with Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen sent a legal notice on behalf of Richards threatening criminal prosecution for defamation under the laws of Thailand. The notice further stated that she/Duensing – Kippen did not represent PGS, but only Carl Richards the individual (divorced from his fiduciary responsibilities of PGSUK secretary?). SDK believed that the notice was extortion and published this belief. SDK also informed Duensing – Kippen that SDK and PGS were currently bound by contractual confidentiality terms and conditions governed by the laws of England and that litigation in Thailand was unnecessary if the SCA is a valid and legal instrument. (SDK had concluded that the SCA could not be a legal instrument since it was supported by defamatory forged documents.) SDK did not give too much thought to the correspondence at the time. But, how did Duensing – Kippen receive SDKs post address in Thailand? SDK had provided WFW and PGS with passport and post address information for the 2016 SARs. SDK did comply with the demands, to a degree, at first, but did not receive reasonable verification or details to believe the claim was legitimate. Richards resigned from PGS 25 May 2013, according to the PGSUK company information published on Companies House website. In June, SDK again submitted another SAR. This time SDK cited the new General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) which had replaced DPA.
No additional data was provided from the 2018 SAR. However, within the response from PGSUK in-house solicitor, John Francas, PGS again threatened litigation for breaches in the SCA? In September 2018, SDK left Thailand and returned to the USA. Duensing – Kippen delivered two criminal complaints to SDKs Thai residence on the date SDK departed Thailand. Duensing – Kippen and PGS had used SDKs passport data to track his travels. SDK did not receive the complaints in electronic format. Only firm copies were delivered by post. SDK had to shorten his visit to the USA and return to Thailand to address the PGS sponsored criminal complaints. Even though Duensing – Kippen had explicitly informed SDK that they did not represent PGS, upon arriving to back to Thailand, Duensing – Kippen had delivered two criminal complaints. One was on behalf of Richards, who still had never confirmed his identity in fact. The other claim was on behalf of PGSUK directors Pedersen, Langseth and Steen-Nilsen. Duensing – Kippen had lied to SDK in stating that they did not represent PGS. The “legal claims” of criminal defamation under Thai law included only a small portion of the publications posted since 2015. Content had been translated from its original publication in English into Thai. SDK sent several inquiry emails to PGSUK directors and legal, including Francas, PGS General Counsel Lars Mysen, and PGS Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke, and PGS UK HR Manager Gareth Jones. No one replied to these emails even with the ongoing litigation in Thailand. SDK had to hire Thai lawyers and travel to Bangkok, Thailand Criminal Court to address the claims. This costs thousands of US dollars since there were two separate criminal claims instead of just one.
The claims delivered by Duensing – Kippen on behalf of PGS, WFW, and LZW traumatized SDKs Thai in-laws. SDKs mother in-law went to the hospital and became gravely ill. SDKs family in the US were also traumatized – and still are, along with my wife and children because of PGS’ harassment and illegal actions against their victim of crimes! The delivered claims also were a material breach of the SCA which prohibited the publication of disparaging content, such as an illegal false criminal complaint to silence a whistleblower. On 11 November 2018, SDK signed two Thai compromise agreements to avoid criminal trial in Thailand. For the record, Duensing – Kippen have no idea what is or is not defamation. Neither does Francas. The entire point of SDKs publications is to expose PGS processing illegal forged and unverifiable documents. Defamation is the publication or disclosure of false and harmful information about another party. One cannot ascertain what is true or false through documents that have no counter-signature or supporting data. Further, the threshold for disparagement is much less than proving defamation. How can there be criminal defamation in Thailand but not a breach in the SCA? There cannot be. The litigation in Thailand was get evidence of crimes de-published. Within 10-days of the Thai compromise agreements, SDK was told that he “breached” the Thai agreements through reporting the current predicament and ongoing litigation to JOGMEC while PGS was negotiating the sale of a vessel to JOGMEC. SDK again was exercising his legal right under law and contract to publicly disclose PGS mischief, but was silenced to PGS could once again silence the truth.
PGS and Richards had Duensing – Kippen (illegally) file two more criminal complaints in retaliation for SDKs whistleblowing to JOGMEC. The new trials were set for January 2019. SDK had taken nopgs.com offline as discussions around the litigation and compromise agreements were ongoing. SDK does not believe that the Thai agreements are legally enforceable for several published reasons. The main issues are that SDKs contracts with PGSUK are governed by English law with no limit in time. This includes data protection provisions by GDPR and whistleblower protection through PIDA. The Thai compromise agreements were unnecessary if the OEC had not been breached by PGS and the SCA were a legal instrument. Between 11 November 2018 and January 2019, likely in December 2018, nopgs.com was stolen and SDK lost access to his website. This theft and destruction of evidence was intended to silence legal and protected disclosure about PGS corruption. However, SDK has been certain since 2014 SAR that PGS processes inaccurate defamatory data. Nicholson and Francas both threatened litigation due to breaches in the SCA when they both knew the SCA was not an enforceable legal instrument supported by forged documents. The Thai Compromise agreements also had resolution venues in Harris County, Texas federal or state courts. SDK questioned this. Thai defamation laws are notoriously severe. These laws do not parallel Texas law or USA Federal law. The USA is comprised of fifty independent states with separate laws which differ from federal statute. Neither the USA nor Texas can or would enforce Thai criminal laws.
On 3 July 2019, Francas contacted by email SDK regarding breaches in the Thai agreement between PGSUK and SDK. Nopgs.com content was republished on marineseismicsurvey.com. Duensing – Kippen has demanded articles de-published. Based on what? PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have not presented evidence that the content on marineseismicsurvey.com actually is the same as nopgs.com and is covered by the litigation because they stole nopgs.com and all content was lost! Richards has remained silent since slithering out of England (to Brisbane, Australia, SDK believes). SDK has no idea where Richards is and Richards has made no attempt to change that. Richards has protested no published content. No director nor named executive has ever even tried to defend their own reputation. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have relied upon illegal threats against SDK and his family from Duensing – Kippen to demand silence. This is how corrupt and cowardly PGS, WFW, and Landau Law are. There is no interest in the truth, only the continued deception of a public so PGS, WFW and Landau Law can publish lies about their unethical and illegal business practices. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have allowed many disparaging publications that name cohorts. Reinhardsen has never even tried to defend the reputation and value of PGS, Equinor, and Telenor. Reinhardsen has allowed employees to have their names published and reputations tarnished. Leaders do not allow that! The cowardly and corrupt run away from the truth.
The people most severely damaged by PGS, WFW and Landau Law are the whistleblower and his family. SDK, who publishes the truth is blacklisted?! PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have caused incalculable damage to the upstream oil and gas industry, as well as the geoscience, HR, and employment law professions. True professionals should admonish such behavior and shun their cowardly and corrupt brethren who destroy lives. They are all disgraceful. As late as May 2020, Duensing – Kippen continued citing SDK breaches in the Thai agreements and harassing SDK and his Thai family. SDK is in the USA now and the Thai agreements cite the USA federal and state courts of Texas. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have been requested to remark on the status of the SCA which they all formed. Why such an effort to run away from that agreement? All of the PGS agreements lead us back to Texas where the fake data about PGS was shared. It takes us back to the questions asked in 2014 and are now posed again to PGS UK HR Manager Gareth Jones. Explain the Memo and all other documents PGS processes within SDKs PGS personnel file and confirm Jones’ agency/employer from 2013 – 2020? And answer the base question, is the SCA signed in England 5 December 2013 really a legal contract? PGS, WFW, and Landau Law silence is obstructing justice and that really is a USA and Texas crime and I have always been a USA citizen. .