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.
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.
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.
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
On 5-Dec-2013, I signed a final SCA under some pressure. The reality is that I was a foreigner and I wanted the ordeal to end so I could leave the bad situation. However, on 4-Dec-2013, I requested assurances that the data PGSUK was processing as my personal data was accurate and queried Landau about getting an unfit note and abandoning the SCA discussions and pursuing a constructive dismissal. Landau, Rushton, and Thomas provided assurances that the data was accurate, although at no time was the data itself seen or discussed while Landau was engaged. At the time, I was not as knowledgeable about the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which was a provision in my original employment contract. I was placed on garden leave until my departure from England. Even though the SCA was signed 5-Dec-2013, the terms of the SCA were not fulfilled until April-May 2014. While my repatriation was paid for, PGSUK agreed to only reimburse for moving expenses. When PGS affiliates had moved me and my family before, they usually paid for three months accommodations so that the employee could find suitable permanent living arrangements. My household items finally arrived to my residence in Houston, Texas, USA from Weybridge, England a few months later. And then I had to submit expense forms to PGSUK HR for reimbursement. I had noticed strange interactions when I returned to Houston, where I had not lived for ten years, during job searches and Geophysical Society of Houston events. In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the DPA to PGS/PGSUK. When I received copies of my personal data, I discovered that PGSUK was processing false/forged records in my personnel folder.
Accusations fit on a bumper sticker; the truth takes longer.Michael Hayden
If you are undergoing a character assassination as we speak, or seem to be cycling through them like Rasputin, it is possible that you are simply an asshole.Ryan Pannell, How to Survive a Character Assassination
Discovering that defamatory records were being preserved and processed as my personal data has been the impetus behind my blog campaign. PGS/PGSUK has never been compelled to explain or defend how these records were created and allowed to be processed in definitive legal terms. However, over time I have deduced that PGS/PGSUK must have conspired with the lawyers from LZW and WFW to process false records to support a bogus and unsubstantiated performance based termination that would cost PGS/PGSUK much less to settle than fairly addressing the health and safety, breach of contract, and defamation issues brought-up within the grievance. How were LZW and WFW informed and to process illegal documents supporting a false narrative? The answers to these questions point to criminal and civil liability for those in positions of legal accountability, namely the officers of PGSUK and PGS legal compliance, and the lawyers from LZW and WFW who consummated the SCA on false pretenses. My published criticisms and accusations of these principals are not responded to. The PGS compliance team, officers, or lawyers do not respond to my allegations of fraud, embezzlement, and bribery made to their “hotline”. Their collective silence shouts guilt. Yet, stakeholders allow officers, general counsel, and those responsible for enterprise legal compliance to abrogate their agency responsibilities and not defend the interest of the Company, but rather protect themselves personally acknowledging events or taking any responsibility. PGS has now restructured and formed a leaner executive team. Unfortunately, the new PGS executive is composed of the same officers of PGSUK and agents who have been publicly accused of criminal behavior. The corrupt provide the corrupt with sanctuary in Norway.
Companies Act 2006
The top-tiers of the PGS corporate hierarchy are corrupt and selfishly misguided. I was very surprised after I published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015) and received no response from any executive of PGS. This confirmed that Reinhardsen is not an enterprise leader. Reinhardsen’s commercial acumen seems to be his ability to distribute other people’s money to corrupt benefactors to buy allegiance in place him on various Boards of Directors or in executive management positions close to control of the enterprise money spigot. Stealing money from shareholders and redistributing it to corrupt supporters demonstrates a kind of corrupt political acumen, but notreal leadership. I have published numerous articles or images stating Reinhardsen and his disciples, Pedersen, Reksnes and Langseth are liars, cheaters, criminals, fraudsters, and assholes. They remain silent and unfazed by such rebukes, as if this is actually doing their job. Leadership is not about being okay with criticism about you. It’s not supposed to be about the person, as an officer of a company. Leadership is about not accepting criticism of the company and its stakeholders, especially employees. Employees, above all others, represent the character and values of the company, after all. And now Reinhardsen carries his cowardly and dishonorable soiled baggage as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Equinor. Reinhardsen’s corrupt disciple, Pedersen, continues his debauchery as CEO and President of PGS.
My first PGS focused article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015), also called-out PGS employees, by name. If the named employees are upstanding in character and performance, wouldn’t true leadership and agency defend and extol them? And if the allegations of malfeasance are true, then wouldn’t true leadership and agency address the issue in a legally compliant way? Honorable leadership would absolutely defend the honor and character of those whom they lead, as well as the enterprise that they lead, above themselves. They would practice the values they sign to represent, because it is their job and agency to do so. They would defend their honor, because their defense of their own character is inextricably intertwined with the reputation and success of the enterprise. (Apparently, this does not apply to Norwegian corporations.) Leadership that does not step into the fray to defend the honor of the enterprises Chief Scientist is simply cowardly, feckless and corrupt. As for the Chief Scientist himself, who at a different time, published an PGS internal (intranet) essay exalting the benefits of practicing Core Values, where is your outcry and allegiance? I implore you to step into the fray and maintain the integrity of PGS as a technically focused geophysical company (and not a hedge fund). My queries have been simple for a legal and compliant enterprise. I want PGS/PGSUK to demonstrate that only the processes and data PGS used to support an SCA between myself and PGSUK was accurate, applicable and reproducible to support the outcome.
Letter from Reinhardsen
Companies cannot operate reliably, safely and profitably without having all people, processes and assets working properly and cooperatively toward the same objectives. Compliance means demonstrating compliance and not simply stating that there is compliance (Pedersen/Bjølseth). As top-cited workplace hazards, workplace bullying and harassment behaviors negatively impact enterprise reliability, safety, and profitability. The proliferation and damage from workplace bullying and harassment behaviors require the misuse and abuse of legitimate enterprise power. This is why workplace bullying and harassment behaviors are viewed by many as a form of corruption in of itself which negatively impacts most every aspect of enterprise performance. It is also known that workplace bullying and harassment behaviors are too often supported by corrupt management structures against whistleblowers. Corruptly managed enterprises are always less reliable, less safe, and less profitable. Toxic workplaces become a Petri dish for corrupt workplace culture. Toxic workplaces allow processes and resources to be mismanaged to preserve and protect the corrupt power structure at the expense of enterprise performance. The abuse of power manifests itself when there is an existential threat to the enterprise power structure through the proper and principled use of processes and assets. There is a global workplace bullying epidemic. Eliminating such top-cited workplace hazards, such as workplace harassment and bullying, is essential for achieving operational integrity, as well as eliminating corruption. And this includes operations in conducting 4D seismic surveys.
Do not punish people for being honest and truthful. The day we will start punishing people for demonstrating honesty and truthfulness, will also be the day we will start surrounding ourselves with liars and dishonest people. Reward the behavior you want your people to demonstrate.Sanjeev Himachali
All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.Scott Alexander
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.
~ Ayn Rand ~
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
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.Ben Horowitz