Saturday, January 4, 2014

Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship

Voser wisely abandons an unstable ship

Dec 28th, 2013

“Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship, per se, because it has no means of self propulsion. It will be towed to location and anchored, supposedly for the life of the gas field exploitation project. This vessel is nothing more than a giant production and processing barge masquerading as a ship.”

I have bad news for Shell. A whistleblower who has major safety concerns with the Prelude flagship vessel destined for Australia, has supplied me with potentially explosive information. I am in possession of a considerable amount of internal information and photographic material. The person in question has been intimately involved in the project at a high level and is deeply concerned that warnings issued to Shell (and other parties) have been ignored and financial considerations are taking priority over safety issues. The whistleblower is very concerned about mismanagement and the alleged use of totally unqualified personnel.

By John Donovan

Peter Voser could not wait to ease Jeroen van der Veer out of the top job at Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

He was full of enthusiasm and itching to implement his plans, which included making hundreds of Shell executives reapply for their own jobs.

Mr. Voser now has only days left as Chief Executive, with Ben van Beurden about to receive what he may view as a poisoned chalice.

Voser’s sudden decision to jump ship for a “lifestyle change”, announced several months ago, took many by surprise.

There has been some speculation that he was pushed.

In any event, the announcement added to the growing queasiness about Shell’s situation and prospects.

Prelude FLNG project

Shell has been trying to capture investors imagination with the launch of the Prelude, the so-called biggest ship in the world.

One of our outspoken contributors has commented:

“Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship, per se, because it has no means of self propulsion. It will be towed to location and anchored, supposedly for the life of the gas field exploitation project. This vessel is nothing more than a giant production and processing barge masquerading as a ship.”

I have bad news for Shell. A whistleblower who has major safety concerns with the Prelude flagship vessel destined for Australia, has supplied me with potentially explosive information. I am in possession of a considerable amount of internal information and photographic material. The person in question has been intimately involved in the project at a high level and is deeply concerned that warnings issued to Shell (and other parties) have been ignored and financial considerations are taking priority over safety issues. The whistleblower is very concerned about mismanagement and the alleged use of totally unqualified personnel.

Bearing all of the above in mind, is it any wonder that Peter Voser decided to jump ship?

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

BUENSUCESO's REPLY TO MAUGHAN's DEC 30, 2013 E-MAIL

January 30, 2014

Mr. James Maughan

Assistant Deputy Director

Division of Financial Assistance

Phone: 916-341-5694

Email: jmaughan@waterboards.ca.gov

Mail address: 1001 I Street, 16th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

SUBJECT : Continuing demand for the return of the original educational credentials as evaluated by ERES and comments why a circle mark was wrap around the word "PHILIPPINES" as shown in the returned exact copy (photocopy) of my original educational credentials.

Copy of the credential with discriminatory circular mark around the word "PHILIPPINES".

Dear Mr. James Maughan,

Good morning.

From your e-mail dated December 30, 2013 as an alibi for denying the minimum six (6) educational points for Grade 1 operator certification examination you wrote the following:

"Concerning the request for educational transcripts from you, this is a request that we make to all applicants and all comply with this request in order to take the exam. It is the only way we can make a determination of educational credits that can be awarded to the applicant.

Section 3700(a)(3)- of the operator certification regulations states “ a copy of a high school diploma or equivalent; college transcripts; graduate school transcripts; report cards; certificates of completion for wastewater treatment and management courses; and chemical, civil, or mechanical engineering registrations issued by California or another state, a territory, or Indian tribe, to verify completion of educations requirements.” (This except is found on page 32 of the regulations). Here is the link to the regulations:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf "

Please be informed that these regulations are effective just last April 1, 2013 as shown by the information shown below. For your appreciation, click "Final Text of Regulations".

These regulations are not yet effective on September 6, 2012. There is no sense applying

regulations promulgated on April 1, 2013 for applications filed on July 24, 2012.

FROM THE WATERBOARDS OPERATOR CERTIFICATION WEB PAGE

Announcements

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has revised its
regulations in chapter 26 of division 3 of title 23 of the California Code of Regulations,
regarding wastewater treatment plant classification, operator certification, and
contractor registration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification
Program. The regulations are effective April 1, 2013.

Please see:

May I reiterate in unequivocal terms that I have sent the "original" copy of my

educational credentials covering the Bachelor of Science in Management

Engineering as evaluated by ERES, Sacramento, CA, together with my

application for operator certification and the check payment of $95. This set

of application documents was prepared by me then received by Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

Hence, may I most respectfully remind you that your statement on your e-mail below,

to wit:

" If this document was not the "original" then the only thing I can conclude is

that you never sent the "original" to us but a copy." , is outrageous, baseless

and irresponsible. As a matter of fact, Ms Debbie Zuccala had not denied the

existence of the "original" ERES educational credentials since

September 6, 2012 up to the present times. Ms Christine Gordon,

Mr. Wes Wilkinson and Ms Anna Hernandez, all did not deny the existence

of the "original" copy of my educational credentials as evaluated by ERES.

Therefore, you can not belatedly claim otherwise, during these times, after you

have been caught cheating and lying about it.

Since, September 6, 2012, on my letter, last paragraph I have requested and

demanded that the original copy of my educational credentials covering the

Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering as evaluated by

ERES (Educational Records Evaluation Service, Sacramento, Ca) be returned

to me with signature of Ms Anna Hernandez initially, which later, since

Mr Wes Wilkinson and you have checked it as well, I requested that

Mr Wes Wilkinson and you signed it just the same. I wanted to categorically

state that you have not send me yet the original copy of my educational

credentials. With regard to this issue, it is worthwhile to inform you that

Ms Debbie Zuccala willfully refused to reply, Ms Anna Hernandez failed to

respond, Mr Wes Wilkinson ignored to reply, the Office of Operator
Certification ignored to reply, then Mr Andrew Cooper withheld the
information about this ERES educational credentials, then ran away and
hide, then now you are telling me that you have sent all the original copy
and you have nothing else to return. With all due respect, you are cheating.

Since, September 6, 2012, I have drawn the line. I did not and will not send in

any additional educational records. I do not intend to seek the complete or

over all educational points that the Bachelor of Science in Management

Engineering could make. I just needed the minimum six(6) educational points for
Grade 1 operator certification examination. I repeat just six(6) educational points.

It does not make sense that you still needed to analyze transcript of records from

schools and universities from the Philippines to come up to conclusion that

I have met the required minimum six(6) educational point for Grade 1 WWTP
operator certification examination. The evaluation of the transcript of records for
this mentioned educational credentials have been well taken cared of by

ERES for you. Besides, as my record and experience with your staff is to be

considered, with all due respect, they are incompetent and irresponsible and

cunning. At most, as I saw it, they would not know how to evaluate transcript

of records from foreign countries as evidenced by their deeds, as exemplified

on the next paragraphs and therefore letting your staff and you, analyze transcript

of records from the Philippines is deemed to be a useless and futile exercise
being already been professionally taken cared of for you by ERES.

See for yourself, again with all due respect, Ms Debbie Zuccala

considered my WWTP Operator Certification application for an application

for WWTP Operator-in-Training Certification. These application forms are

distinctly different from each other and when asked why, she refused to reply.

The code of regulation said, that applications not in the correct forms shall be

considered deficient and deficient applications shall not be processed but

Ms Debbie Zuccala still processed my application and charged me S95 though it

is not in the correct form and therefore, deficient, and should not been processed,

and I should have saved my $95.

This proves Ms Debbie Zuccala's incompetence.

That same application, though has already been found as an application for

WWTP operator certification and not correct application for WWTP

certification examination, but still Ms Anna Hernandez process it,

and charged me $40 though it was deficient. A violation of your own regulation
done not once, but twice with express approval of Mr. Wes Wilkinson.

This showed Mr. Wes Wilkinson and Ms Anna Hernandez collective

incompetence.

Second, Mr Wes Wilkinson and Ms Christine Gordon in conspiracy, both send me

an e-mail on September 24, 2012 claiming each one of them is Ms Debbie

Zuccala's manager with covert intention to confuse me and drive away culpability

from Ms. Debbie Zuccala. Though they might be both managers for Ms Debbie

Zuccala, prudence and courtesy and good judgment dictate that it would

be very confusing for me to talk to two managers for the same person at the same

time, especially so, when these two managers are avoiding accountability

for Ms Debbie Zuccala deeds and/or omissions. Consequently, they have

completely confused me. This proves that Ms Christine Gordon and

Mr Wes Wilkinson are cunning.

Third, Mr. Andrew Cooper, declared himself as the Freedom of Information Officer,

then, withheld the information about the now controversial "ERES educational

credentials" and when informed that he was replying to a letter not addressed to

him and told that his act consisted "usurpation of authority," now, he is gone into

hiding. This shows Mr Andrew Cooper gross misrepresentation and dishonesty.

Fourth, as to the person who opened the the letter addressed to the Agency

Administrator of the California Water Resources Control Board

as my records showed the suspects might be from Mr. Andrew Cooper, then,

Mr. Wes Wilkinson and then you, Mr. James Maughan. As you already knew,

that letter was addressed to Mr. Tim Howard, being the Agency Administrator

and not to you. With all due respect, with your deeds and/or omissions, which

plunged me into deeper pain and misery, you became (pardon me for this word) a

shame to the office of Mr. Tim Howard which you are trying to represent.

This is gross misrepresentation, cheating and dishonesty.

Fifth, with your continuing reluctance to return to me original copy of my

educational credentials as evaluated by ERES (Educational Records Evaluation

Service, Sacramento, Ca) together with your signature and rest of signatures of

Ms Anna Hernandez and Mr. Wes Wilkinson, you have effectively deny me of the

chance to show that pieces of original document to a neutral third party and to

seek their corresponding opinion or advice about this matter, and consequently
if warranted, file appropriate administrative or civil or criminal charges against
Ms Anna Hernandez, Mr Wes Wilkinson and you, Mr James Maughan.

This is suppression of evidential documents, deceit and dishonesty.

Again, I wanted to reiterate that if Ms Anna Hernandez, and Mr. Wes Wilkinson

and you, most respectfully, Mr. Maughan strongly believe that you are right on

denying the minimum six(6) educational point requirement on my educational

credentials that is with you right now, (no transcript of records) for a Grade 1

WWTP operator certification examination, then, please do not hide it, and put

your signatures on it with pride and great honor to show the public that you

have done the right thing. Otherwise, you have done something ridiculous
and shameful.

Please send me back the original educational records covering the Bachelor of

Science in Management Engineering as evaluated by ERES with your signatures
as soon as you can.

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Antonio L. Buensuceso

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

MAUGHAN's REPLY TO BUENSUCESO's DEC 30, 2013 E-MAIL

Dec 30 (2 days ago)

Maughan, James@Waterboards

to me, Liz.Haven, Jonathan.Bishop, shellresearchw.

Mr. Antonio Buensuceso Jr.,

I want to be clear to you, because I do recognize that this exchange of emails from you has gone on for a very long time.

First we did not receive any other documents from you other than the ones that we have sent back to you already per your request. We have not kept the “Original” ERES document, so the only conclusion is that you sent us a copy. You will notice that the ERES document that we sent back to you has our original stamp of receipt by our office. The stamp has the date and time we received that document from you. This confirms that was the document we received from you and have returned to you.

Concerning the request for educational transcripts from you, this is a request that we make to all applicants and all comply with this request in order to take the exam. It is the only way we can make a determination of educational credits that can be awarded to the applicant.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf

We do not have the reviewers sign a copy of your documents and return them to the applicants. The country of origin was circled to make highlight that the education was received in a foreign country. I again sincerely apologize if that caused you any distress. We do not discriminate against anyone wishing to take the exam. We have many applicants who apply from other countries and all are welcome.

Mr. Buensuceso, I honestly do not know what else I can do for you if you are unwilling to submit your transcripts to us. I wish you the best in your pursuits.

Sincerely

James Maughan

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Financial Assistance

916-341-5694

jmaughan@waterboards.ca.gov

The TRUTH will set you FREE.