Some idiotic organization has not performed proper due diligence and hired corrupt and dangerous PGS ASA to conduct a 4D survey in the Gulf of Mexico. PGS Board of Directors and Executive Management need to be investigated for multiple crimes and health and safety violations before stakeholders are placed at risk.
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) EVP Per Arild Reksnes Operations Artifice (First published on NoPGS.com 9 June 2018)
Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.
Spencer Johnson
Art’ is the same word as ‘artifice,’ that is to say, something deceitful. It must succeed in giving the impression of nature by false means.
Edgar Degas
It has been demonstrated, for some time, through the work of W. E. Deming and others, that it is the management of processes and assets that overwhelmingly determines enterprise performance and not individual workers. Management must first thoroughly understand the interactions of processes and assets in order to make the kind of changes that will continually improve enterprise performance. Without such knowledge, there is no guarantee of improvement. Within the May 2018 issue of Oilfield Technology magazine, marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS), Chief Scientist Andrew Long, based in Australia, has penned an article, Streaming Ahead, which examines best practices for marine seismic 4D data acquisition and processing. Apparently, PGS is also recognizing their 25th GeoStreamer™ (dual sensor streamer) 4D survey, as well. The problem is that every decision made by PGS board of directors and management is predicated on artifice – a game of let’s pretend. When concession operators issue requests for tenders to service providers, the companies respond through providing information about the company’s capability and historical performance in operations, as well as the organization structure identifying those with final decision making authority to be held accountable. This is especially with respect to health, safety, and the environment (HSE). However, such information/data is only relevant if it is accurate, applicable and reproducible. These elements are essential for all processes and for all types of data, seismic or HSE. In the latter case, PGS processes fake data and lies to stakeholders. PGS management will engage in nefarious and illegal acts to silence the voice and destroy the careers of HSE whistleblowers. The PGS Board of Directors participated in the charade through making their own selfish and self-preserving decisions to support corrupt management decisions, to the long term detriment of PGS enterprise performance.
My blog writing campaign has been going-on now for approaching three-years. It has been a rebuke of PGS managerial integrity. Operational Integrity is the objective of good management. It is the synergistic optimization of enterprise resources, along with the best processes and practices that affect product service and delivery. Operational integrity is enterprise utopia where every process, asset, and person is behaving as prescribed and the results are coincident with optimum expectations. In the real world, complex systems are managed through analyzing the residuals between actual results and expected results and then endeavoring to continually improve the use of processes and resources to minimize these residuals. Integrity is defined as concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. Understanding thoroughly the interaction between processes and resources and then making thoughtful decisions to improve these interactions is managerial integrity. Pretending to understand and not following the prescribed interactions between processes and resources and then taking action is artifice. Action alone will never result in the desired outcome, only correct actions will. How human resources are managed impacts all enterprise performance where humans manage. What is certain is that there can never be operational integrity in the absence of managerial integrity. This is why corruptly managed enterprises can never perform optimally. As PGS EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes abused his position of trust by breaching legally guaranteed processes. Reksnes signed fabricated personnel records intended to exonerate corrupt PGS management from HSE, policy, and legal transgressions from accountability in order to destroy the career of an honest employee and whistleblower.
25 October 2013 (Alleged) Forged Memo processed to affect my termination has never been disputed byPer Arild Reksnes or anyone else
On 13-Jun-2013, I was called to, in what is referred to in bullying
lexicon, an ambush meeting. The day before this ambush meeting, I
had attended the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE)
annual meeting in London. I was able to
attend only one day of the EAGE event.
However, I did make a point of listening to a talk presented by Long. I am a USA citizen and was working with PGS’
affiliate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge,
England KT13 0NY (PGSUK) on a sponsored Tier 2 visa. I was called to the ambush by then
Human Resource (HR) Manager, David Nicholson.
Also in attendance were my first line supervisor, Edward von Abendorff,
VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, and his direct superior, Simon Cather,
Marine Contract –Africa Regional President.
The ambush meeting was a watershed event in my life. I was working within the Contract Sales –
Africa group, at the time. My attending
this event had been scheduled and even paid for weeks before. Nevertheless, Abendorff was apoplectic about
my attending this event. Yes, we were
busy. But, the sales group had selected
me to attend the event. Therefore, I had
organized my work accordingly. And it
seemed that attending such an event where potential clients may be attending in
our own backyard would be beneficial from a business standpoint too. I had been member of SEG and EAGE for years,
long before my role in sales. However,
the toxic, narcissistic and sophomoric PGS/PGSUK workplace culture believed
that my attending to the delicate egos of corrupt bully bosses took
precedence over generating new business relationships. My belief was that abiding by PGS core
values, of which HSE performance was high-lighted, took precedence over such egos.
This was the back-drop to my being called to the ambush meeting.
Three bullies
True science thrives best in glass houses where everyone can look in. When the windows are blacked out, as in war, the weeds take over; when secrecy muffles criticism, charlatans and cranks flourish.
Max Ferdinand Perutz
The integrity of men is to be measured by their conduct, not by their professions.
Junius
I was very offended by the ambush meeting, as well as the bullying behaviors which preceded it. Following this ambush meeting, I requested minutes from the meeting, as well as an explanation as to how the ambush meeting complied with PGSUK policy and practices. I was denied all of these requests. Six-months later, I would no longer be working with PGSUK. I signed a settlement contract agreement (SCA) that would terminate my paid employment with PGSUK, 5-Dec-2013. My signing the SCA was the culmination of enduring months of having material personal data withheld from me, multiple misrepresentations being told to me and about me, and threats to my job security. My grievance claimed, among other things, gang-bullying and harassment, misuse of the PGSUK performance management system, breach of contract duty of care and mutual trust and confidence provisions. Workplace bullying/harassment behaviors are the abuse of authoritative power with health harming effects. Such behaviors are often antecedent or coincident to othercorrupt behaviors. After I arrived to Houston, Texas, USA, January 2014, I noted strange behaviors and reactions from professionals that I interacted with during job searches and attending Geophysical Society of Houston (GSH) events. Something was off. In October 2014, I filed a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and learned that PGS/PGSUK data processors were processing forged records within my professional personnel file. I was in disbelief. Since that discovery, I have uncovered substantive evidence showing that PGS/PGSUK agents (likely) bribed my legal adviser(s) to forward and process forged documents supporting a false narrative to support a performance based termination to replace the much more serious HSE and defamation claims brought forth within the grievance. I believe that the reason the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) caseworkers were not able to assist in correcting my personal data is because the forged documents were also processed and supported by the other lawyers who formed the SCA.
The grievance directly implicated the ambush meeting
participants, von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson. The grievance was submitted to the bullies Norway
based superiors, who at the time were, Reksnes, and Terje Bjølseth, SVP Global
HR. The grievance was also sent to John
Greenway, SVP Marine Contract, who the group often interacted with in strategy
meetings. My coworker/witness, John
Barnard received a copy. Once the
grievance was delivered to the Norway based PGS executives, the decision as to
how to handle the grievance became the providence of the executive management
team, and in particular, the PGSUK directors/secretary. Reksnes was part of the PGS executive
management team. Reksnes’ response
should have been guided by his superior, then President and CEO, Jon Erik
Reinhardsen. Reinhardsen also served as
a director for PGSUK. The other PGSUK
directors who shared responsibility for the decided course of action in
handling the formal grievance were Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO and EVP, and
Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Chief Accountant.
Carl Richards, PGSUK Head of Legal, had recently (13-Sep-2013) assumed
the role of PGSUK secretary prior to the submission of the grievance (20-Sep-2013). My ability to submit the grievance had been
obstructed since my communications following the ambush meeting. There was an effort to obstruct my
ability to counter or discuss allegations.
I never was provided the opportunity to review the data to support the
claims made in the ambush meeting, which in hindsight was a DPA
violation.
Nicholson stated that both the PGS and PGSUK legal staff had
reviewed the grievance and determined that I was in dispute with the
Company. I was also informed that I
would need to engage a solicitor if I were to consider the SCA. I declined this proffered SCA and stated
that I wanted to continue down the grievance process. As a UK trained lawyer, as well as the sole
UK national, as secretary, Richards was principally responsible for ensuring
process compliance with PGSUK policy and UK laws. Notwithstanding that Pedersen, as General
Counsel, also shared these responsibilities.
Bjølseth, in addition to being SVP Global HR was on the PGS Compliance
Team, along with then PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen. The grievance document submitted 20-Sep-2013
was unambiguous. I was initiating the
grievance process. However, I have
reason to believe that Norway based executives had been fore-warned that a
formal grievance would be submitted.
Certainly, Nicholson was aware of that I intended to submit a
grievance. However, he was likely caught
off guard to be named and implicated directly within the grievance. Therefore, Norway based executives had
likely already coordinated a planned response for what they expected to receive,
but also needed to adjust their response.
A meeting was eventually scheduled for 14-Oct-2013 by Nicholson. No PGSUK officer or PGS compliance, or legal
staff (Bjølseth, Pedersen, Reksnes, Richards, etc.) ever contacted me
between 20-Sep-2013 and 14-Oct-2014. However,
on 10-Oct-2014, Nicholson, who had been accused of defamation and misuse of the
performance management system, among other things, proffered a SCA so that I
would abandon the grievance process.
PGS UK Grievance Procedure
Grievance Process
We know that we cannot live together without rules which tell us what is right and what is wrong, what is permitted and what is prohibited. We know that it is law which enables men to live together, that creates order out of chaos. We know that law is the glue that holds civilization together.
Robert Kennedy
When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.
William Blake
Why was Nicholson, accused of lying about me to destroy my career
(bullying and defamation), allowed to even meet with me alone at this
point? When Nicholson initially
proffered the SCA, there was no evidence to suggest that any real investigation
had been carried out. I never had been
told how the ambush meeting or the subsequent ambush letter which
provided similar unsubstantiated allegations regarding performance and
threatening my continued employment comported with PGSUK policy or UK law. Also, I never received the requested minutes
from the ambush meeting. These facts
were explicitly expressed within my submitted grievance. I had always felt that the ambush meeting was
inappropriate. The bullies were able to
continue violating my human rights as a foreign worker, as well as my rights
under employment law and contract law. Nicholson
must have also known that the ambush meeting was inappropriate. Once I informed Nicholson that I intended to
submit a grievance, there was a concerted effort to obstruct my right to submit
a grievance. PGSUK bullies withheld information
and misrepresented facts intended to damage my professional reputation and rob
me of income. In between the ambush
meeting (13-Jun-2013) and ambush letter (24-Jul-2013), 15-Jul-2013,
PGSUK renewed and endorsed their sponsorship of me and my family’s Tier 2,
Shortage Occupation List (SOL) visa. It
was never clarified to me how investigating a possible performance improvement
plan (PIP) comported with my status as a Tier 2 visa holder. None
of the fabricated performance issues noted during the ambush meeting or within
the ambush letter were shared with me or the UK Border Agency. PGSUK intentionally withheld these
unsubstantiated allegations from me, and omitted these details on the renewal
application of my Tier 2 visa and dependents.
I attended the 14-Oct-2014 meeting by video conference. I was accompanied by my witness,
Barnard. Both Reksnes and Bjølseth
chaired from Norway. I mostly retold the
points raised within the grievance.
Meanwhile, I had already been in email communication with Philip Landau,
then with Landau, Zeffert, and Weir. Remarkably,
Landau was also supportive of abandoning the PGSUK documented grievance stages
and move toward an SCA. Landau had been
made aware of all details, and provided with the actual grievance document with
names redacted 11-Oct-2014. Landau was all
aware that I was attending the grievance hearing. There were no other HR proceeding involving
me, beyond the grievance. I formally
engaged Landau and made payment for his services 22-Oct-2013. I had no direct personal, telephone, or
e-mail contact related to the grievance with anyone from PGS/PGSUK following
the 14-Oct-2014 grievance hearing through my departure from England,
24-Dec-2013. All communications went
through Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton. PGS/PGSUK enlisted the services Watson,
Farley, and Williams’ Rhodri Thomas to negotiate the final terms of the SCA,
which began 1-Nov-2013. Progress was
slow. An additional consideration to the
SCA was repatriation costs to the USA. The
stress from all of this was building-up, and I took five consecutive sick days
in mid-November. Abendorff and Nicholson
demanded that I see a contracted occupation health nurse, and I did. I related to her my current circumstances and
that I hoped for a fair and timely resolution.
She recommended that I see a GP and issued a draft report for me.
Per Arild Reksnes + Bjolseth signed forged Memo
Per Arild Reksnes + Bjolseth
On 5-Dec-2013, I signed a final SCA under some pressure. The reality is that I was a foreigner and I
wanted the ordeal to end so I could leave the bad situation. However, on 4-Dec-2013, I requested
assurances that the data PGSUK was processing as my personal data was accurate
and queried Landau about getting an unfit note and abandoning the SCA
discussions and pursuing a constructive dismissal. Landau, Rushton, and
Thomas provided assurances that the data was accurate, although at no time was
the data itself seen or discussed while Landau was engaged. At the time, I was not as knowledgeable about
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which was a provision in my original
employment contract. I was placed on garden
leaveuntil my
departure from England. Even though the
SCA was signed 5-Dec-2013, the terms of the SCA were not fulfilled until
April-May 2014. While my repatriation
was paid for, PGSUK agreed to only reimburse for moving expenses. When PGS affiliates had moved me and my
family before, they usually paid for three months accommodations so that the
employee could find suitable permanent living arrangements. My household items finally arrived to my
residence in Houston, Texas, USA from Weybridge, England a few months
later. And then I had to submit expense
forms to PGSUK HR for reimbursement. I
had noticed strange interactions when I returned to Houston, where I had not
lived for ten years, during job searches and Geophysical Society of Houston events. In October 2014, I submitted a subject access
request (SAR) citing the DPA to PGS/PGSUK.
When I received copies of my personal data, I discovered that PGSUK was
processing false/forged records in my personnel folder.
Accusations fit on a bumper sticker; the truth takes longer.
Michael Hayden
If you are undergoing a character assassination as we speak, or seem to be cycling through them like Rasputin, it is possible that you are simply an asshole.
Discovering that defamatory records were being preserved and
processed as my personal data has been the impetus behind my blog campaign. PGS/PGSUK has never been compelled to explain
or defend how these records were created and allowed to be processed in
definitive legal terms. However, over
time I have deduced that PGS/PGSUK must have conspired with the lawyers from
LZW and WFW to process false records to support a bogus and unsubstantiated performance
based termination that would cost PGS/PGSUK much less to settle than fairly
addressing the health and safety, breach of contract, and defamation issues
brought-up within the grievance. How
were LZW and WFW informed and to process illegal documents supporting a false
narrative? The answers to these
questions point to criminal and civil liability for those in positions of legal
accountability, namely the officers of PGSUK and PGS legal compliance, and the
lawyers from LZW and WFW who consummated the SCA on false pretenses. My published criticisms and accusations of
these principals are not responded to. The
PGS compliance team, officers, or lawyers do not respond to my allegations of
fraud, embezzlement, and bribery made to their “hotline”. Their collective silence shouts guilt. Yet, stakeholders allow officers, general
counsel, and those responsible for enterprise legal compliance to abrogate
their agency responsibilities and not defend the interest of the Company, but
rather protect themselves personally acknowledging events or taking any
responsibility. PGS has now restructured
and formed a leaner executive team.
Unfortunately, the new PGS executive is composed of the same officers of
PGSUK and agents who have been publicly accused of criminal behavior. The corrupt provide the corrupt with
sanctuary in Norway.
Companies Act 2006
Companies Act 2006
The
top-tiers of the PGS corporate hierarchy are corrupt and selfishly
misguided. I was very surprised after I
published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO
Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015) and received no
response from any executive of PGS.
This confirmed that Reinhardsen is not an enterprise leader. Reinhardsen’s commercial acumen seems
to be his ability to distribute other people’s money to corrupt
benefactors to buy allegiance in place him on various Boards of Directors
or in executive management positions close to control of the enterprise money
spigot. Stealing money from shareholders
and redistributing it to corrupt supporters demonstrates a kind of corrupt political
acumen, but notreal leadership. I have published
numerous articles or images stating Reinhardsen and his disciples, Pedersen,
Reksnes and Langseth are liars, cheaters, criminals, fraudsters, and assholes. They remain silent and unfazed by such
rebukes, as if this is actually doing their job. Leadership is not about being okay with
criticism about you. It’s not
supposed to be about the person, as an officer of a company. Leadership is about not accepting criticism
of the company and its stakeholders, especially employees. Employees, above all others, represent the
character and values of the company, after all.
And now Reinhardsen carries his cowardly and dishonorable soiled baggage
as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Equinor. Reinhardsen’s corrupt disciple, Pedersen, continues
his debauchery as CEO and President of PGS.
My first PGS focused article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015), also called-out PGS employees, by name. If the named employees are upstanding in character and performance, wouldn’t true leadership and agency defend and extol them? And if the allegations of malfeasance are true, then wouldn’t true leadership and agency address the issue in a legally compliant way? Honorable leadership would absolutely defend the honor and character of those whom they lead, as well as the enterprise that they lead, above themselves. They would practice the values they sign to represent, because it is their job and agency to do so. They would defend their honor, because their defense of their own character is inextricably intertwined with the reputation and success of the enterprise. (Apparently, this does not apply to Norwegian corporations.) Leadership that does not step into the fray to defend the honor of the enterprises Chief Scientist is simply cowardly, feckless and corrupt. As for the Chief Scientist himself, who at a different time, published an PGS internal (intranet) essay exalting the benefits of practicing Core Values, where is your outcry and allegiance? I implore you to step into the fray and maintain the integrity of PGS as a technically focused geophysical company (and not a hedge fund). My queries have been simple for a legal and compliant enterprise. I want PGS/PGSUK to demonstrate that only the processes and data PGS used to support an SCA between myself and PGSUK was accurate, applicable and reproducible to support the outcome.
Letter from Reinhardsen
Letter from Reinhardsen
Companies
cannot operate reliably, safely and profitably without having all people, processes
and assets working properly and cooperatively toward the same objectives. Compliance means demonstrating compliance and
not simply stating that there is compliance (Pedersen/Bjølseth). As top-cited workplace hazards, workplace
bullying and harassment behaviors negatively impact enterprise reliability,
safety, and profitability. The proliferation and damage from workplace bullying
and harassment behaviors require the misuse and abuse of legitimate enterprise
power. This is why workplace bullying
and harassment behaviors are viewed by many as a form of corruption in of
itself which negatively impacts most every aspect of enterprise performance. It is also known that workplace bullying and
harassment behaviors are too often supported by corrupt management structures
against whistleblowers. Corruptly
managed enterprises are always less reliable, less safe, and less
profitable. Toxic
workplaces become a Petri dish for corrupt workplace culture. Toxic workplaces allow processes and
resources to be mismanaged to preserve and protect the corrupt power
structure at the expense of enterprise performance. The abuse of power manifests itself when
there is an existential threat to the enterprise power structure through the
proper and principled use of processes and assets. There is a global workplace bullying
epidemic. Eliminating such top-cited
workplace hazards, such as workplace harassment and bullying, is essential for
achieving operational integrity, as well as eliminating corruption. And this includes operations in conducting 4D
seismic surveys.
Do not punish people for being honest and truthful. The day we will start punishing people for demonstrating honesty and truthfulness, will also be the day we will start surrounding ourselves with liars and dishonest people. Reward the behavior you want your people to demonstrate.
Sanjeev Himachali
All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.
Scott Alexander
Do you wish to know when that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by Compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
This post was first published on nopgs.com which was created after several prior articles were posted on LinkedIn Pulse.The Philip Landau advised settlement contract between client SDK and his employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, England, contained Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the employee publishing content that disparages Company stakeholders. Such clauses are worthless if the settlement contract is fraudulent.Complaints got SDK restricted from LinkedIn. SDK then published on nopgs.com. NoPGS.com was stolen from SDK through illegal extortion and vexatious litigation sponsored by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited hired Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen in 2018. PGS ASA seems to have endless financial resources to find and hire corrupt legal “professionals“.
Conspiracy, Deceit and Fraud in the Marine Seismic Industry
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment of the U.S.A. Constitution
One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real.
Klaus Kinski
You Are as Strong as You’re Honest | Jordan Peterson
Truth be told, I believe that Jon Erik Reinhardsen and several of his executive cabal should be in jail. That’s how I feel about workplace mobbing, especially when it involves fraud. During the past several months Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) agents have violated every Code of Conduct and Core Value which PGS articulates on their web site. PGS has lied to their stakeholders, the UK Border Agency officials, and the Information Commissioner’s Office personnel repeatedly. I have alleged PGS executives to have obstructed legally guaranteed processes, forged official records, conspired to defraud, provided material misrepresentations, breached internal policies and several UK employment and contract laws. Most of all, PGS executives have abused their positions and violated their agency responsibilities of trust and confidence and duty of care to maintain a healthy and safe workplace. Forgery and the uttering of forged instruments is criminal behavior. According to the Crown Prosecution Services, fraud and forgery are punishable by up to 10-years imprisonment for each violation. This explains the silence and hiding from addressing allegations straight-on as a transparent and lawful organization would want to do as quickly as possible. However, in spite of having a legal team, human resources team, and contract team, PGS has been unwilling to present definitive proof of compliance and legal behavior, even though they state to the public and to me otherwise. PGS is mostly involved in a cover-up of corrupt and illicit behavior. PGS executives have been uncooperative and silent and demonstrated no interest in resolution, but instead have ran-away from accountability. PGS executives have compromised the reputation of PGS and the morale of its stakeholders.
On 6 September 2015, I published Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign: Applying the No-Asshole Rule in the Marine Seismic Industry on LinkedIn™ (LI) Pulse. It was the most read publication that I posted on LI, based on recorded number of reads which was well over 5000 last time that I had checked. There was proportionately very little outcry over this post. There were warning that legal action toward me by PGS would be imminent. The named executives within the post have remained excruciatingly silent. On 20 September 2015, I published my follow-up piece on LI, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – A Bully Targets Reprise to provide context for the prior post. What is most important for readers to understand, especially PGS stakeholders, is that nothing has ever been communicated to me directly by either Reinhardsen or other executives within the year that has passed beyond their terse defamatory denial. Several additional articles have been posted focused on PGS management over the past few months, as well. My rebuke of the Reinhardsen regime has been grounded in their unwillingness to address the many inconsistencies in their fraudulent narrative construed and propagated by corrupt PGS Human Resources (HR), Legal, and Marine Contract executives. I came upon these inconsistencies through submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) which allows data subjects the right to receive data that data controllers hold about them. I had written about this earlier, 3 July 2015, within, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”.
My blogs are no longer posted on LI (however, they can be found here). Anonymous (to me) complainers led to my posted content no longer being accessible on the LI platform. My connections and membership in my group, Marine Seismic Survey, had kept steadily growing. Nevertheless, a few sympathetic to a corrupt corporation with salaried, albeit apparently incompetent and/or corrupt, marketing and legal teams thought censorship and continued mob-bullying of a target preferable to providing responsible and truthful answers. The content of my posts did not simply make claims that agents of my former employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited [PGSUK], were only mean bullies. Rather, my claims have addressed the retaliatory false narrative held within my professional personnel file after I left my employment with a settlement contract agreement. Settlements are offered mostly to prevent future litigation by terminated/separated employees. Following my protests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the false instruments that PGSUK held in my personnel file (so far to no avail), I contacted lawyers. Of course, the settlement agreement is the instrument to defend against such litigation. Since ICO never investigated even the most basic issues with my held records, I was in a bit of a fix. Similarly, Action Fraud in the UK usually does not investigate claims of fraud anyhow, but especially issues which they would regard as civil tort matters. That is the sad reality of victims of fraud. So, this is when I began the publishing of my story – the truthful narrative – because it mattered to me then and matters even more now. This was a bit of a risk since I had insisted on the inclusion of a mutual non-disparagement clause within the separation contract. Within my articles I have called PGS executives liars, cheaters, fraudsters, charlatan’s and assholes and my articles been in the first-pages of Google™ searches. I have also mailed my articles and/or links directly to the PGS Compliance Team and Audit team members for comment and received no response.
A writer should express criticism and indignation at the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature, but we should not use one uniform expression.
Mo Yan
Truth is the ultimate power. When the truth comes around, all the lies have to run and hide. ~ Ice Cube
It has now been a year since I posted the articles stating that Reinhardsen should resign from his position of President and CEO of PGS. I mostly recognized Reinhardsen as the immediate hierarchical superior above EVP Marine Contract Per Arild Reksnes and SVP HR Terje Bjølseth in the head office of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). I had filed a workplace grievance against my boss, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, Edward von Abendorff; Marine Contract Africa Regional President, Simon Cather; and HR Manager EAME, David Nicholson. These individuals are based in Weybridge, England. I worked within Reksnes’ Marine Contract division, and of course as a member of his group had met and attended meetings with him. I had never met Bjølseth. After many delays and obstructions to actually submit my formal grievance, Bjølseth and Reksnes finally listened to my complaint over video conference. One has to sympathize with the predicament of being a foreigner working within a toxic work environment. There was always (undue) influence and control issues simply because as a Tier 2 visa holder me and my family were in England at the request of PGS. I could not very easily leave my position in a toxic environment for another. I had always known that Bjølseth and Reksnes had rigged the process at some level by how they mishandled the grievance hearing. PGS mobsters/bullies would throw punches in forms of criticism of my performance, but never provide anything in writing which would then provide me the opportunity to sensibly address the issues. But, there really weren’t issues. That’s the point. It was always bullying and mobbing with the objective to have me lose my job and damage my reputation.
All of this malevolent behavior
focused on me obviously did not seem correct. It seemed like a disguised constructive dismissal. So, while I was glad to escape England, I knew the
process had never been fair. But, at the same time, I did not want to
stay in England sponsored by a defendant in litigation. That would have
been too difficult for me and my family to endure. We all left Weybridge,
England and moved to Houston, Texas. While Houston had been my personal
home of record for USA tax and legal purposes, I had been working overseas on
vessels, in Africa, in Malaysia and then England for most of my time – 14 years
– with PGS. My home of record for PGS had been Thailand while I was
working rotation assignments. My wife and daughters had never lived in
the USA before our move to Houstion. After about ten-months in Houston, I
began to sense some strange vibes (retaliation). But, without direct
evidence, there was not much that I could allege. It was during this time
that I learned about the DPA and submitted my SAR to PGSUK. I noted many
discrepancies in my personnel file which was included with my request.
The most noticeable falsehood which
was presented within my personnel file was the 11 September 2013 date reference
within two of the documents: the mentioned letter and a memo signed by
only Bjølseth and Reksnes. The 11 September 2013 date stood out because
it was the date when I had been first scheduled to present my grievance.
However, this meeting was rescheduled until 20 September 2013. I had
never received a corrected letter. No documents since a controversial
meeting in June 2013 through to my settlement agreement had been reviewed or
bore my signature or the signature of my immediate supervisor, Von
Abendorff. I did not agree with the content held within the records
either. I had email records which showed that the meeting had been
postponed. I also had email evidence that my grievance was delivered 20
September 2013 and it addressed the issues within the letter too. The
only formal process that was ongoing while I was employed by PGSUK was the
grievance process which I had initiated. PGS had tried to insert a
performance issue, but I resisted simply because I knew no documentation
existed which I thought could support a legitimate termination. In fact,
that was a central issue of my grievance. PGS never provided anything in
writing. PGS had withheld critical 14 June 2013 meeting minutes which
were material to a fair process and instead provided me with a letter with performance
in the subject line in replacement several days later. No attempt to
correct or address my claimed performance issues had ever happened. There
was no meeting on 11 September 2013, especially one which addressed performance
issues, which preceded the 20 September 2013 delivery of my grievance.
But, PGS continues to fraudulently pretend that there was.
I believe the process of going from confusion to understanding is a precious, even emotional, experience that can be the foundation of self-confidence.
Brian Greene
Reality is self-defined as the mob, any mob, writes its own history, never to be contradicted by the quiet statement of truth.
Mike Barnicle
The grievance which I filed was
predicated on a 13 June 2013 meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 letter.
I was invited to this ambush meeting on very short notice by Nicholson
with Von Abendorff and Cather also attending. Obviously, they had planned
this in advance. The ambush meeting was very offensive to
me. I had to listen to unsubstantiated claims of performance
issues. I had asked for minutes of this meeting soon after it occurred
and also indicated that I thought it had been inappropriate and that I wanted
to file a grievance. Following this email, PGS made a fervent attempt toward
a performance based termination. The grievance expounded on the
behaviors and violations in procedures and even contract and employment laws
and claimed bullying and harassment. Employers, and especially high-level
executives and directors bear responsibility to maintain a safe and healthy
work environment and can be held liable if they do not. Workplace
bullying and harassment are top-seeded and well documented workplace
hazards. I cited academic literature, PGS policy, and UK labor laws
within my grievance as well. What is interesting is that there was a
change of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors 13 September 2013.
Notably, the role of Secretary was changed from Candida Pinto to Carl Richards,
both lawyers with whom I had worked with during my time at PGSUK.
Richards continues to be Head of Legal for PGSUK. (Pinto is with Global
Geophysical Services in the UK now.) Nevertheless, she was indeed a
responsible director during the times of the documented events, including the
11 September 2013 (non) event referenced within my personnel file. Pinto
also has tracked (liked) PGS LI posts where I queried PGS to explain these
events (which they never did). (The flurry of queries followed by PGS
deletions, followed by more queries, is what pushed my exit button from LI.)
Cognitive dissonance is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. PGS is a dishonest, corrupt and toxically hierarchal managed organization where bad behaviors propagate and are rewarded. This is the truth which PGS has demonstrated by inaction and silence. The last and only public statement directed toward me by PGS was within their LI comment space. PGS stated that they had investigated my complaints and determined that policies and procedures were followed. This posted statement within the PGS LI space for many to see is patently untrue. Before injecting my allegation into the PGS LI comment space, I had presented many queries through less conspicuous channels of email and telephone. Of course, I requested a thorough report be delivered explaining the many inconsistencies. But, these communications to the PGS Compliance Hotline go unanswered. The focus of the 24 May 2016 post, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud, in fact pointed out how ridiculous the Compliance Hotline team were to consider a terse declaration of PGS compliance anything close to an investigation. I have to state it again, the PGS Compliance and Audit team are an impotent farce. No meaningful report was ever produced and sent to me. I have been a data analyst most all of my adult life and also possess certification as a Lead Auditor for ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems. I know how meaningful audits should be conducted and how to analyze the results. The statement was just more cover-up by PGS executives. The UK and Norway agents/mobsters likely cannot believe that their American (USA) workplace mob/bully target would not and will not stand for a false narrative to be propagated by corrupt and cowardly high-level PGS executives. My truthful LI content is still preserved for posterity in the digital space beyond the reach of trepid PGS cry-babies, and from there more new content will continue to be published.
The first instinct of new workplace subordinates within hierarchical organizations is to be respectful and even diminutive to their hierarchical superiors. (This can be seen as weakness to a psychopath.) However, to actually be respectable requires that superiors adhere to stated policies and procedures. Those who do not accept accountability for the decisions that they make need to be challenged. True respect is only granted to those who accept and are fully accountable for their behavior. Corruption and abuse of agency power is not to be tolerated by those who dignify themselves in values, integrity, and character. When one discovers that the policies and processes that define the conditions of a professional business relationship have been transgressed the only honorable recourse and responsibility to the fair market is to engage and challenge the wrong-doers. This is especially the case when several agents cooperate to manipulate and obstruct the individual’s rights with the wanton intention of harming a target and his family simply because they are illegally afforded the power to do so. Such mobbing violence inflicts tremendous health and financial consequences to the target and their families. All this is done to support and protect a cowardly workplace mob of corrupt fraudsters such as Von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson. If these individuals had a shred of dignity or truth at their defense, or if they were held to do their jobs according to the Code of Conduct and Core Values – if they would have played by the rules – the events of the past year would have never occurred. But, this is not where we are. So, a corporation with a legal team, HR team, and contract team are not capable of providing definitive proof that they followed laws and policies. The conspirators and perpetrators of workplace violence and fraud can only continue to lie and whimper that they have done nothing wrong. Tick-tock, the truth can only lie latent so long.
If you don’t fix latent failures in your system, you’re asking for trouble.
John Gould
It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.
James A. Baldwin
While employed with PGS globally I
had exchanged short pleasantries with Reinhardsen on his visits and actually
sat at a table with him during an SEG Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. I
never harbored any bad feelings toward Reinhardsen and he actually seemed
pleasant enough. In 2013, PGS was still operating vessels equipped with
conventional single-sensor hydrophone streamers as they phased in replacing
them with GeoStreamer™. It was the S-class vessels capable of towing
14-streamers (@100m separation) and 6-streamer capable vessels which operated
conventional streamers. The problem was that the S-class vessels did not
carry enough streamers to allow maximum capable spreads. Many wondered
why the 6-streamer vessel was kept operating at the expense of optimizing the
S-class vessels. Within the Africa group everyone knew Von Abendorff was
completely absorbed in the older low capacity vessels. (It is almost hard
to imagine how he enjoys going to work each day without the low-capacity
conventional streamer vessels to proffer and no target to bully!)
Reinhardsen did not have much of an answer back then. However, since PGS
had built a business model around vessels capable of towing wide-spreads to
reduce project costs, maintaining the low-capacity vessels at the expense of
the S-class seemed strange. I had limited information about what drove
fleet decisions and was curious as someone who was in a position to see what
customers and projects requested. From these interactions there certainly
would be no reason to ask for Reinhardsen’s resignation.
The achievement of business outcomes
is only relevant if enterprise management follows the rules. If they do
not, it is called cheating and the performance outcomes are dubious at
best. That is why compliance teams are in place and why how businesses
address issues of internal governance and reputational risks is of principal
importance to all investors in a company. Companies, like civilizations,
collapse by the integrity of their leadership and the decisions which they
make. It is the strategy of corrupt boards and executives to deflect
accountability onto the unwitting investors and away from themselves while
reaping misappropriated benefit. It is the strategy of corrupt boards and
executives to also disparage those who reveal their malfeasance through further
abuse of power and the violation of their commitments to that agency. It
is preservation of the syndicate above the stakeholders of the company that
defines corruption. Toxic management practices, such as harassment,
bullying, and mobbing demonstrate poor management and control of workplace
performance. It’s the misuse and abuse of resources to affect suboptimal
performance. It is the practice of the dishonest, incompetent, and
insecure to deliver unreliable results while hiding corrupt and illegal
activities. It’s reprehensible and despotic behavior within the workplace
that impacts every aspect of the delivery of products and services to
customers.
Apparantly, PGS agents in Weybridge and Lysaker are betting on a bunch of white-collar criminals crying in unison to cover-up the truth. Bjølseth has been a dominant actor through every phase of my grievances with PGS. Bjølseth is also one of the Compliance Hotline contacts. He is accused of forging personnel records and has failed to definitively authenticate the documents he and Reksnes signed. Conflict of interests? The other listed members, Rune Olav Pedersen, General Counsel must be aware of the change of PGSUK Secretary 13 September 2013 and the liability ramifications of directors, especially those who fail to authenticate false records. Along with Silke Hitschke, Compliance Officer, these contacts have never provided any substantive report to me or the public. All have failed to prove otherwise. Emails have been sent to the Compliance Team with questions. The team have also been emailed the articles and/or links for comment and have never responded or disputed the issues brought-up. Yet PGS, as a major player in the marine seismic industry, had to rely on anonymous stooges to complain to LI to have my content removed. I should not be the only one demanding evidence and action. I cannot say that I know Reinhardsen. However, he made commitments within a letter to PGS stakeholders. I believe that a man who decides to facilitate health harming behavior meant to negatively impact the well-being of me and my family should show the respect and tell me why? PGS has the responsibility to explain the reasons behind their actions if they were all above board. But, we all know they weren’t. I may not know Reinhardsen, but I know his character. If Reinhardsen were an effective leader, he would want to know me better too. How long will PGS stop hiding from the truth? My objective is for it to be sooner than later.
Power should be reserved for weightlifting and boats, and leadership really involves responsibility.
Herb Kelleher
Every time you make the hard, correct decision you become a bit more courageous, and every time you make the easy, wrong decision you become a bit more cowardly. If you are CEO, these choices will lead to a courageous or cowardly company.
