E-mail korrespondanse Jannik Lindbæk - Ole Østlund av 1999:
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:18:34
To: "Jannik Lindbaek" <tinorway@hotmail.com>
From: "Ole C. Ostlund" <falk@reality.multinet.no>
Subject: Re: TI Norway
Cc: Lisbeth.Juhl.Aalberg@akermar.com, Trond.Aasland@hydro.com, afroaid@twiga.com, AKASY@statoil.com, tomas.alden@sida.se, jensc.andvig@nupi.no, Valter.Angell@nupi.no, Ann.Elise.Locka@statkraft.no, arindam.banik@sum.uio.no, ArneO.Brundtland@nupi.no, arnt.angell@okokrim.no, ARTH@statoil.com, as@nca.no, bakken@nias.ku.dk, BdeS@compuserve.com, Aina.Bergstrom@reddbarna.no, birgitte.teigland@dnb.no, tor.birkeland@ose.no, harald.bockman@sum.uio.no, einar.braathen@nibr.no, jorn.bue@ah.telia.no, bwi@hib.no, Caroline_Dale_Ditlev-Simonsen@im.storebrand.no, chr@npaid.org, knut.christiansen@nca.no, danbanik@sum.uio.no, arne.disch@scanteam.no, dyvikeco@c2i.net, anne.edgren@Bankforeningen.no, bengt.ekman@sida.se, elisabeth.cook@reddbarna.no, elise.lindbak@eksportfinans.no, erikbh@stv.uio.no, tore.eriksen@finans.dep.no, NF/NF/es@npaid.org, Helge.Espe@reddbarna.no, Ingar.Falck-Olsen@nrc.no, falk@reality.multinet.no, ragna.fidjestol@norad.no Cc: jannikli@online.no, galtung@ibm.net, jannik.lindbaek@giek.no, wr-holen@online.no, SFiebig@transparency.de, hvvuuren@transparency.de, ameschkat@transparency.de
Mr. Lindbæk
Until the time you have properly answered my inquiries about Storebrand
and its role in the "Kielland" disaster you are instructed to
delete my mail address from your mailing list. I have not asked to be included
on the list. I have neither received your position in regard to TI-Norways
position on this case, ref. homepage of FALK International http://www.multinet.no/~falk/
I am for the record enclosing our previous communication.
Ole Ostlund >President >FALK International >
.......................................................................
At 12:39 01.11.99 GMT, you wrote:
STIFTELSE AV TI NORGE
Takk for sist. Den store deltagelse i vårt seminar tyder på
betydelig interesse for disse spørsmål. Vi mener at det er
klart grunnlag for å etablere en lokalavdeling av Transparency International
i Norge. Dette er en foreløpig informasjon om at det vil bli avholdt
møte for å stifte TI Norge tirsdag 30. november 1999 kl. 16.00
- 18.00, Norad, Ruseløkkv. 26. Dagsorden med forslag til vedtekter
etc vil bli sendt ut i god tid før møtet. Vi tar sikte på
at TI Norge bør ha et styre på ca. 5 - 8 medlemmer som i startfasen
bør ta sikte på møter 1 gang pr måned. Jeg er
takknemlig for å motta forslag til kandidater til medlemmer av styret.
Jeg har selv tenkt å stille til valg som medlem av styret. Styret
bør ellers helst ha en bred sammensetning, med representasjon fra
alle de interesserte parter. Det vil bli opp til styret, når det
er valgt og konstitutert, å tilrettelegge arbeidet med utvikling
av en strategi for TI Norge, finansiering av virksomheten, lage budsjett,
og opprette et sekretariat. Et annet viktig spørsmål blir
også om TI Norge skal søke kontormessig tilknytning til andre
miljøer.
Jeg er takknemlig for alle tanker og ideer i denne forbindelse og ønsker ellers vel møtt.
Med vennlig hilsen >> Jannik Lindbæk >> _________________________________________________
FOR THE RECORDS:
17.10.99 >To: Mr. Jannik Lindbæk,
The entire life is a prosess of learning!
There is a saying that the insurance coverage on "Kielland" was
increased (doubled) aproximately 3 weeks before the disaster. I suppose
this and related matters will be made known to the public the day the Norwegian
Parliament decides on a Public Hearing on the "Kielland" matter.
The left wing PAX book published only approx. 14 days after the disaster
contained major misinformation. Years later I was informed by the former
NRK journalist Bjørn Nilsen that the editor of the book's tecnical
section, Carl Martin Larsen, wrote his part in close contact with his superior.
Larsen's superior at the time was professor Torgeir Moan at the university
in Trondheim, who at the time was appointed tecnical expert within the
official investigation committee established by the Government the day
after the disaster.
How come Statoil assisting the Committee never submitted samples of the
exploded breaking point on bracing D-4 to Sintef and/or other research
laboratories for metallurgical testing ? I do not have at hand the exact
time for you leaving Storebrand, however, I remember mr. Aarestrup as chairman
of Storebrands board of directors picked the former Statoil employee Mr.
Langangen as your successor. Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't
one of your subordinates in Storebrand become the first managing director
of TV2 ?
TV 2 has paid some attention to the "Kielland" case, but they
have still not disclosed all the technical evidence presented proving the
explosion in bracing D-4. If you were to become chairman of TI Norway,
what would be your attitude on these matters ?
Regards >Ole Ostlund >
......................................................................
14:04 17.10.99 GMT, you wrote:
Ole Østlund: >>
Thanks for your message. In my reply to your message I did not at all try
to go into the detailed allegations made by you in your first message.
I am of course unable, at this time, to confirm any of the information
given by you for a very simple reason: I left Storebrand in 1985 and during
the intervening 14 years I have not had occasion to refresh my memory or
had access to the details of this tragic case.
Given a little more time it would be interesting to go more deeply into
the matter, and perhaps also to contact one or two former colleagues from
that period. What I do remember is that I reviewed the matter quite carefully
at the time. I also remember the book published by Pax which I probably
still have here in my house somewhere. I also remember meeting the NRK
journalist Bjørn Nilsen in a restaurant where we had a lengthy discussion
about the matter. My impression at the time was that it was an extremely
sad and tragic accident, but that it did not seem probable to me that there
was anything pointing in the direction of a possible conspiracy.
The numbers you mention regarding Storebrand's involvement may well be
correct, I would have to check them in order to be able to confirm them.
I do believe however that Storebrand had a much larger gross exposure on
the risk on behalf of itself and its immediate reinsurers, the risk retained
for own account may well be close to the number indicated by you. Storebrand
would in such a situation feel very responsible not only for its own exposure
for own account, but also for the total exposure of itself and its immediate
reinsurers. There is in such an insurance contract a very close and long
term relationship between the company underwriting the risk and its reinsurers,
very much based on mutual trust. Storebrand in handling such a matter would
therefore feel deeply committed to represent not only its own interests,
but also the interests of its reinsurers in a fully responsible way. In
a way you could say that Storebrand was acting as a trustee on behalf of
the reinsurers.
One thing which may be hard to understand for someone who is not in the
insurance business, and I assume that you do not have that experience (?)
is the arm's length approach which is used in cases like these. It is unthinkable
to me that whatever interests Storebrand might have as a part owner of
the rig could at all influence the way the claim was handled. I would certainly
have been aware of it if such a totally irregular approach had been pursued.
I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge there was no such pressure
brought to bear on the people handling the claim. If there had been even
the slightest substance to such an allegation or even that there was the
slightest merit to such a perception I would have insisted that the claim
should have been handled by some other insurance company involved in the
risk. The whole of the Global marine insurance market trusted the way which
the claim was handled by Storebrand and in this market with a relatively
limited number of active players, a lot is indeed done on the basis of
such trust.
Another aspect where I cannot confirm you statement is related to the allegation
of sabotage. Even if there had indeed been sabotage it is noto clear to
me, based on the information I have available to me at this time, that
it would have made a difference regarding the settlement of the claim,
unless of course it could be proven that the sabotage had been initiated
by the owners themselves. Even in such a case the mortage lenders in the
platform might have been protected. But without having access to the documents
and other details of the case this becomes very speculative.
Without access to the files I cannot comment on the other questions raised
in your last message, but I may get back also to these aspects.
I apologize if I have lectured you on insurance matters, and I do not know
whether this is of any value to you at all. It has been interesting for
me o rethink what happened so many years ago. My memory of what happened
is necessarily limited by the many years that have gone by since this extremely
tragic accident. I can promise you however that I will look more deeply
into the matter and get back to you in due course with my further impressions.
Best regards >>Jannik Lindbæk >>
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ole C. Ostlund" <falk@reality.multinet.no
To: "Jannik Lindbaek" <tinorway@hotmail.com>
CC: galtung@ibm.net,jannik.lindbaek@giek.no,SFiebig@transparency.de, hvvuuren@transparency.de,ameschkat@transparency.de
Subject: Re: Sv: Received letter of invitation
Mr. Jannik Lindbæk,
I appreciate your prompt reply.
As your reply contains no correction of the picture drawn in regard to
Storebrand's ownership position in "Kielland" and reassurance
coverage I assume this to be correct. I also assume that the insurance
coverage did not include sabotage and/or acts by God as you have not commented
on this part. The main question remains; "who new what at what time"
?
Are you familiar with shipinspector Hilmar Dale's report where it is stated
that Kripos in Oslo only days after the disaster reported they had captured
a person with boarding card to the Edda field and whom had admitted using
explosives on "Kielland" ? Although this later is reported as
false alarm the thought of sabotage must have been brought to involved
peoples mind at that time.
Storebrand being in charge of the insurance pool ordered an underwater
survey of the capsized rig wich took place one month after the disaster.
As part of this survey it was recorded a scare and a hole in bracing D-4
at node 4 under the deck. Video and still photo are reported taken. Who
within Storebrand was in charge of this survey and have you seen the video
and still photo of the hole in bracing D4 ? (There shall be no hole in
this highly stressed area on the rig.)
Statoil assisted the official selected Investigation Commission in its
work. In their report Statoil presents measurements and photos of the broken
bracings connecting the broken away D-leg to the rig. Measurements of bracing
D-4, adjacent to bracing D-6 with the fatigue crack, shows missing material
and the photos of the beaking points of bracing D-4 indicates that an explosion
might have taken place. These information were all gathered in the summer
of 1980. What was Storebrands position in relation to this information
?
Taking a major interest in the Norwegian press at the time I assume this
matter was dealt with on a high level within the Storbrand organization.
Ole Ostlund
At 13:04 16.10.99 GMT, you wrote:
Ole Østlund:
Thanks for your message and for your interesting comments. Let me explain
to you my role with regards to the seminar on October 21 and 22 and the
initiative to form a chapter of TI in Norway.
You are correct in assuming that I am the person who was Managing Director
and chief executive officer of Storebrand at the time of the tragic Alexander
Kielland-case. I do, of course, accept full responsibility for the way
the matter was handled at the time. Nothing I saw then or have seen later
would indicate that the insurance matter was handled in anything but a
correct and professional way by the Storebrand organization, on behalf
of a large number of insurers around the world.
Since I left Storebrand in 1985 I was for 8 years head of the Nordic Investment
Bank and from Januar 1994 until January 1999 I held the position of Executive
Vice President of International Finance Corporation, the private sector
arm of the World Bank Group.
During my work for IFC I got to know the chairman of Transparency International,
Peter Eigen, quite well. He helped us develop and codify IFC's own guidelines
and policy with regards to corruption. I had become very interested in
the work of Transparency International. When it became known that I would
not seek another 5 year term in my position I discussed with Peter Eigen
what I could do for TI in Norway. Peter Eigen put me in touch with Fredrik
Galtung who has collaborated closely with Peter Eigen since the formation
of TI about 6 years ago. Since my return to Norway in January 1999 I have
together with Fredrik Galtung been active in developing interest for the
work of TI with various interested parties, such as the Foreign Ministry,
NORAD, etc. We have been working with the objective of holding a two day
seminar with a good list of international and domestic speakers on the
subject in order gain acceptance for the importance of the subject and
explore the possibility of forming a chapter of TI in Norway. In this context
I have of course had numerous contacts with the TI organization. This event
has been in Peter Eigen's calendar since before the summer. You may correctly
see me as the convenor of this seminar, and the person taking the initiative
to see whether there would be a basis for forming a chapter of TI in Norway.
That this initiative is under way is also made clear from the invitation
that you have received. It would of course be up to the members of the
organization to elect its officers, in due course.
I hope this information is useful to you.
Best regards > >Jannik Lindbæk
--------------------------
From: "Ole C. Ostlund" <falk@reality.multinet.no>
To: Jannik Lindbaek <jannikli@online.no>
CC: tinorway@hotmail.com,galtung@ibm.net,jannik.lindbaek@giek.no, "Fiebig,
Sylvia" <SFiebig@transparency.de>, Hendrik van Vuuren <hvvuuren@transparency.de>,
Anja Meschkat <ameschkat@transparency.de>
Subject: Re: Sv: Received letter of invitation
Mr. Lindbæk,
In person I have been a strong supporter of the general goal of Transparency
International since I learned to know about the organization in its early
days. A healthy, going "coalition against corruption" may be
one mean to make this a better world.
Corruption is however not necessarily related to receiving money and benefits
- corruption is to not fulfill ones obligations within a taken position
to the benefit of other (third) party(ies), in conflict with and at the
expense of the interests one is obligated to protect. It is a saying in
Norwegian that: "Unnfallenhet er den værste form for korrupsjon"
(in free translation to english: "Yielding is the worse form of corruption").
As such it is imperative for TI's operation in any country that their local
officials have the stammina and personal integrity required.
In person I have advocated the establishment of a local chapter of TI in
Norway for a long time. As such I was pleased to receive the invitation
to the seminar on Oct. 21st and 22nd in Oslo and establishment of TI Norway.
At the same time I became somewhat confused as neither myself nor the person
I had put in contact with TI in Germany were informed about your effort.
In capacity as President of FALK International my interest in TI is related
to areas where the objective of Transparency International and FALK International
should be coincident, i.e "RIGHTNESS ABOVE CORRUPTION".
Political corruption in Norway is to the experience of FALK International
widely spread. As such I strongly emphasize the importance in evaluation
and scrutiny of any official representative of TI Norway including the
local chairman before selection.
Receiving the invitation to TI's seminar your name inserted in the bottom
of page 1 under TI Norway, looked familiar. Although I can not recall we
have met in person your name has several times been mentioned to me as
former Director of Storebrand in charge at the time of the "Alexander
L. Kielland" case.
As such you must have been aware of the public questioning arising after
the uprighting of the rig in fall 1983 about the cause of the rig failure
and also the in the press reported accusation about explosion and sabotage.
This took place in a period of time when you as far as I understand still
were in charge at Storebrand and before you left Norway for another assignment
(Nordiska Banken in Finland ?)
As former director of Storebrand at the time I would ask you to correct
(if wrong) the following information brought to FALK International's knowledge,
i.e: Storebrand was the insurance company heading up the insurance coverage
on the "Alexander L. Kielland" offshore accomodation rig which
capsized in the North Sea on March 27th 1980 and were 123 people perished,
among them 27 UK and 2 US citizens.
Records implicate that Storebrand at an early time, only weeks after the
disaster, collected information which strongly indicated that the rig failure
was caused by an human act, involving explosives. There is a saying that
the reassurance coverage only implicated a risk for Storebrand of about
2% of the rig value, while Storebrand at the time of the disaster had an
ownership participation in the rig of approximately 20%. Storebrands interest
as an owner/investor may seem to have taken priority above their obligations
as insurer. This dependent upon the wording, articles, in the insurance
agreement related to act of sabotage. As such it might have been in the
Storebrand managements interest to take an active part in the cover operation.
Ref. FALK International's webpages http://www.multinet.no/~falk/ and in
particular section 6 "The Cover Operation".
Regards FALK International >>Ole Ostlund >President ...................................................................
At 20:10 14.10.99 +0200, you wrote:
Ole Østlund.
Thanks for your message. To tell the truth I have been very busy with organizing
the seminar, which seems to be going very well. The plan is clearly to
establish a chapter of TI in Norway but so far we have not made any decisions
regarding composition of Board etc.
Any ideas that you would like to communicate to me? Hope to see you at
the seminar
Best regards> >Jannik Lindbæk >>
["Ole C. Ostlund" <falk@reality.multinet.no> 1999-10-13
>>> >> >00:28:53]
Thank you for the invitation to your seminar on Corruption Control to be
held in Oslo on October 21st and 22nd. In order to asess whether or not
I would like to attend this event further information is required related
to TI's local chapter in Norway. Such information to include but not be
limited to; Charter date, Name of Board of Directors, references and ecconomical
support.
You may respond by mail.
Regards Ole Ostlund
Ole C. Ostlund >Box 799 >7001 Trondheim >Norway >
TRUTH - JUSTICE - HONOR AND FREEDOM
falk@reality.multinet.no
http://www.multinet.no/~falk/
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~olechris/