MAUGHAN_17MAR15_THIRD TIME_HAVE YOU BEEN AUTHORIZED BY MR. HOWARD TO RESPOND ON HIS BEHALF?

from:		antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
to:		"Maughan, James@Waterboards"
cc:		Liz Haven , Jonathan.Bishop@waterboards.ca.gov, "Gordon, Christine@Waterboards" , "Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards" , "Cooper, Andrew@Waterboards" , anna.hernandez@waterboards.ca.gov, anna.perez@waterboards.ca.gov, "Zuccala, Debbie@Waterboards" , dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, Antonio Buensuceso , Tom.Howard@waterboards.ca.gov, thoward@waterboards.ca.gov
date:		Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:16 AM
subject:		MAUGHAN_17MAR15_THIRD TIME_HAVE YOU BEEN AUTHORIZED BY MR. HOWARD TO RESPOND ON HIS BEHALF?
mailed-by:		gmail.com

MARCH  17, 2015

Mr. James Maughan
Assistant Deputy Director
Division of Financial Assistance

Dear Mr. James Maughan,

May I most respectfully ask from you AGAIN,  have you been  authorized by    Mr. Tom Howard to respond on his behalf? If your answer is yes, then may you please seek an e-mail letter of authority from him giving you an express permission to respond on his behalf pertaining to this subject: HOWARD_12MAR15_6TH FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE WATER  and kindly provide me a copy of it.   The e-mail was addressed to Mr. Tom Howard and not to you, Mr. Maughan.  Without an endorsement from him that you have been authorized by him to respond on his behalf shows discourtesy on your part; likewise, may be tantamount to usurpation of authority, when you failed to secure and show a letter of authority from him.

Meanwhile, may I most humbly seek for your kind indulgence, that may you please quit from just butting in the negotiations without having been properly endorsed and acknowledged; and in case you are not capable of resolving issues under discussion  and you would want someone else to help you out, then please endorse him or her properly to show at least a bit of courtesy or respect for the person on the other side of the line.
I am showing you below my e-mail dated Sunday, February 23, 2014 addressed to you, Mr. Maughan, depicting in great detail this pattern of discourtesy and disrespect, among so many,  bestowed by you and your employees against my person. This culture of discourtesy and/or disrespect or unethical conduct amounting to discrimination is true to everyone in your agency who I happened to deal with from Ms. Debbie Zuccala, Ms. Anna Hernandez, Mr. Wes Wilkinson, Ms. Christine Gordon, Mr. Andrew Cooper and you, Mr. James Maughan and exemplified most vividly by your own agency manager, Mr. Tom Howard.  Your team should have spared Mr. Howard from this ridiculous and shameful predicament had you trained  and equipped  your employees to treat people on the other side of the table with respect and courtesy and free from discrimination early and throughout  the application process.

Please do respond accordingly and responsibly and respond dignified with your own personal accountability.

Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

REFERENCE E-MAIL
Mr. Maughan reply to e-mail addressed to Mr. Howard

from:		Maughan, James@Waterboards <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>
to:		"antonio jr. Buensuceso" <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
date:		Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM
subject:		RE: HOWARD_12MAR15_6th FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATER
mailed-by:		waterboards.ca.gov

Maughan, James@Waterboards <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>  9:34 AM (7 hours ago)
to me

Mr. Buensuceso, we have received your emails which pointed out that we have two references to Title 23 Water.  We agree there are the two links and each link is defined (Effective August 1994, Amended April 2013).    We have received no those comments on this that it is confusing (other than your comments) and there has not been any collection of fee that are not appropriate.  Thank you for your email.  We consider this matter closed.

James Maughan

Assistant Deputy Director Division of Financial Assistance

State Water Resources Control Board

REFERENCE E-MAIL

from:		antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
to:		"Maughan, James@Waterboards" <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>
cc:		"Gordon, Christine@Waterboards" <Christine.Gordon@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards" <Wes.Wilkinson@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Zuccala, Debbie@Waterboards" <Debbie.Zuccala@waterboards.ca.gov>, dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, anna.hernandez@waterboards.ca.gov, "Cooper, Andrew@Waterboards" <andrew.cooper@waterboards.ca.gov>, Jonathan.Bishop@waterboards.ca.gov, Liz.Haven@waterboards.ca.gov, Antonio Buensuceso <shellresearchworks@gmail.com>
date:		Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:31 PM
subject:		PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD TIME
mailed-by:		gmail.com

Sunday, February 23, 2014

PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD IN A ROW

PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD TIME

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Dear Mr. James Maughan,

I am sending this letter today, February 23, 2014, to respectfully remind you that

I have not received any response from you since I sent you the PERSUASIVE

APPEAL dated Thursday, January 30, 2014.  Likewise,  I send the same letter on

Sunday,  February 16,  2014.   I did not receive any response from you on those 

two instances.  These facts led me to believe that you,  like your employees namely,

Ms Debbie Zuccala and Mr Andrew Cooper, fled after being proven to be at fault

to avoid culpability. Then,  someone else would just butt in without being endorsed

and meddle with the issues and complicate the matter even worse.

This is true and even validated again today,  after receiving a letter dated 

February 18, 2014 from Mr. Tom Howard. May I respectfully  inform you that                         
Mr. Tom Howard,  just butted in without being formally endorsed by you.  You 
know well,  that you requested  me to communicate with you with regards 
to my complaints, requests and demand,  and I,  with utmost humility, heeded your 
request.  It is discourtesy  on your side that you will just ignore to respond or 
flee or hide after I have patiently discussed issues with you.  May I most  respectfully 
tell you that If you feel that you are on the losing side of the argument and would 
want to terminate our discussion,  courtesy dictates that you endorse someone 
to communicate with me formally,  in this case Mr Tom Howard,  and not just 
ran away, fled and hide.  Then,  Mr  Tom Howard would just appear from nowhere.
Since,  Mr  Tom Howard,  though it is discourtesy on his side to just butt in without 
being endorsed by you,  but showed the initiative to talk to me by sending me a letter 

through certified mail dated  February 18, 2014,  courtesy and duty dictate me to 

respond. However,  responding through certified mails is too costly for one who is

out of employment for quite some time, so please, I would want to seek your 

indulgence by asking Mr Tom Howard to allow you to provide an  e-mail address 

for  me to write him to.

For your guidance I have the PERSUASIVE APPEAL written as part of this letter.
And my plea remain, please do not hide the original copy of my educational 
credentials, signed by the three of you (Maughan, Wilkinson and Hernandez)  and 
send them back to me and save your boss,  Mr. Tom Howard, from shame as you 
and the rest of your employees,  Mr Wes Wilkinson,  Ms Christine Gordon, 
Mr  Andrew Cooper,  Ms Debbie Zuccala and Ms  Anna Hernandez,   are 
experiencing right now.  Have the courage to keep shame just for yourselves.

Again, please mend your ways and save Mr. Tom Howard from shame.  

Thank you so much.


Yours faithfully,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell Denmark withdrawal, except for toxic Fredericia refinery?

Shell Denmark withdrawal, except for toxic Fredericia refinery?

Mar 17th, 2015 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

COMMENT RECEIVED FROM A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR ABOUT SHELL SELLING A MAJOR PART OF ITS DANISH DOWNSTREAM ASSETS

John 

On your site a few months back there was an article aboutcontamination of the area of the Shell refinery in Fredericia which does not appear to have been included in the sale of the rest of the downstream portfolio. 

“Decade-old oil spills from tanks at the Shell Oil facility in Fredericia are still polluting the environment.”

Is there an issue of liability for clean-up costs? The Fredericia refinery is small, but processes much of the crude produced offshore Denmark (where Shell is the biggest shareholder in the DUC).

Older, smaller refineries in northern Europe do not have a good track record in recent years with many being shut down. It seems odd that Shell did not (or could not) sell Fredericia with the rest of their downstream Danish assets. The low population density and low traffic density caused the other major marketers to pull out years ago, citing continuing losses. This was addressed by allowing filling stations to sell a wide range of goods on Sundays, when other shops were obliged to close. However, most supermarkets in Denmark are now open 7 days a week, so this source of income has dried up.

UPDATE

I have now received information that Shell is seeking a buyer for the refinery. It is understandable, under the circumstances, why that is likely to be a much more difficult task.

Share this:

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print

Like this:

Loading...

Posted in: Environment, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Firesale, Royal Dutch Shell Plc,Shell.
Tagged: Royal Dutch Shell Plc

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell sell’s its Danish Network of 315 Gasoline Stations

Shell sell’s its Danish Network of 315 Gasoline Stations

Mar 17th, 2015 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

March 17, 2015 /PRNewswire/ – Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (“Couche-Tard”) announces today that it has signed, through its wholly-owned indirect Danish subsidiary Statoil Fuel & Retail A/S, an agreement with A/S Dansk Shell to acquire its Retail, Commercial Fuels and Aviation businesses in Denmark.

Pending the customary regulatory approvals and closing conditions, the transaction is expected to close in the second half of Couche-Tard’s fiscal year 2016. The acquisition would be financed from Couche-Tard’s available cash and existing credit facilities. The parties have agreed not to disclose the purchase price for this acquisition.

Shell’s Danish Retail business comprises 315 sites, of which 225 are full-service stations, 75 are automated fuel stations and 15 are truck stops. Of the 315 sites 140 are owned by Shell, 115 are leased from third parties and 60 are dealer-owned.

The agreement also encompasses an important commercial fuels operation, as well as an aviation business operating at seven Danish airports including Copenhagen Airport. Pursuant to the agreement, Couche-Tard would have the right to use the Shell brand in Denmark for up to ten years.

FULL PRESS RELEASE

RELATED

Shell agrees to sell Denmark fuel business to Couche – Tard

Couche-Tard scoops up 315 Shell retail outlets in Denmark to expand northern European footprint

BRIEF-Shell to sell Denmark marketing business to Alimentation Couche-Tard

Share this:

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print

Like this:

Loading...

Posted in: Royal Dutch Shell Firesale, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

The “iEverything” and the Redistributional Imperative

shared from

TUESDAY, 17 MARCH 2015

The Coming “iEverything”

Robert Reich: Most of us will have less money to buy the dazzling array of products spawned by blockbuster technologies – because those same technologies will be supplanting our jobs.

READ MORE

The “iEverything” and the Redistributional Imperative

BY ROBERT REICH

TwitterTumblrFacebookEmailMore

View image | gettyimages.com

It’s now possible to sell a new product to hundreds of millions of people without needing many, if any, workers to produce or distribute it.

At its prime in 1988, Kodak, the iconic American photography company, had 145,000 employees.

 In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy. same year Kodak went under, Instagram, the world’s newest photo company, had 13 employees serving 30 million customers. 

The ratio of producers to customers continues to plummet. When Facebook purchased “WhatsApp” (the messaging app) for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had 55 employees serving 450 million customers. 

A friend, operating from his home in Tucson, recently invented a machine that can find particles of certain elements in the air. 

He’s already sold hundreds of these machines over the Internet to customers all over the world. He’s manufacturing them in his garage with a 3D printer.  

So far, his entire business depends on just one person — himself.  

New technologies aren’t just labor-replacing. They’re also knowledge-replacing.

The combination of advanced sensors, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, text-mining, and pattern-recognition algorithms, is generating smart robots capable of quickly learning human actions, and even learning from one another.

If you think being a “professional” makes your job safe, think again.

The two sectors of the economy harboring the most professionals — health care and education – are under increasing pressure to cut costs. And expert machines are poised to take over.

We’re on the verge of a wave of mobile health apps for measuring everything from your cholesterol to your blood pressure, along with diagnostic software that tells you what it means and what to do about it.

In coming years, software apps will be doing many of the things physicians, nurses, and technicians now do (think ultrasound, CT scans, and electrocardiograms).

Meanwhile, the jobs of many teachers and university professors will disappear, replaced by online courses and interactive online textbooks.

Where will this end?

Imagine a small box – let’s call it an “iEverything” – capable of producing everything you could possibly desire, a modern day Aladdin’s lamp.

You simply tell it what you want, and – presto – the object of your desire arrives at your feet.

The iEverything also does whatever you want. It gives you a massage, fetches you your slippers, does your laundry and folds and irons it.

The iEverything will be the best machine ever invented.

The only problem is no one will be able to buy it. That’s because no one will have any means of earning money, since the iEverything will do it all.

This is obviously fanciful, but when more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, the profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors.

One of the young founders of WhatsApp, CEO Jan Koum, had a 45 percent equity stake in the company when Facebook purchased it, which yielded him $6.8 billion.

Cofounder Brian Acton got $3 billion for his 20 percent stake.

Each of the early employees reportedly had a 1 percent stake, which presumably netted them $160 million each.

Most of us will have less and less money to buy the dazzling array of products and services spawned by blockbuster technologies – because those same technologies will be supplanting our jobs and driving down our pay. We need a new economic model.

That virtuous cycle is now falling apart. A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.

Our underlying problem won’t be the number of jobs. It will be – it already is — the allocation of income and wealth.

What to do?

“Redistribution” has become a bad word.

But the economy toward which we’re hurtling — in which more and more is generated by fewer and fewer people who reap almost all the rewards, leaving the rest of us without enough purchasing power – can’t function.

It may be that a redistribution of income and wealth from the rich owners of breakthrough technologies to the rest of us becomes the only means of making the future economy work.

Robert Reich

Republished with permission from Robert Reich’s Blog.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.