Posts from ‘January, 2007’

Jan 31 2007
David Williamson,
 
ONE of Russia’s most ambitious and controversial energy projects will use Welsh fire safety technology in a “seven-figure” link-up with Pontypool-based Flamgard.

Its products will protect staff extracting oil and gas in sub-zero temperatures on the island of Sakhalin, north of Japan.

The $20bn venture made headlines worldwide last month when Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom wrested control of holding company Sakhalin Energy from Anglo-Dutch operator Shell.

Flamgard is now expecting to significantly increase staff and expand its premises, and is seeking a bigger presence in the international energy market and the UK nuclear sector.

Flamgard, formed in 1981, designs and manufactures ventilation and fire damper products. It struck the deal with assistance from the overseas trade arm of the Welsh Assembly Government, International Business Wales (IBW).

Peter Huxford, operations director, said the Russian oil and gas market was immense and the contract highly significant.

Flamgard employs 26 people but predicts a workforce expansion of at least 30%.

It is one of a small number of manufacturers which can meet the latest Russian safety specifications. The technology is designed to ensure that a fire would be prevented from spreading between neighbouring areas of the facilities.

They also had to convince the buyers that the technology will operate in temperature of -48C.

Flamgard has a strong reputation for providing safety equipment in shipyards in South Korea, Singapore and the Middle East. They aim to transfer this expertise to the UK nuclear market, which they predict will be “busy”.

Mr Huxford said, “We have the technical capabilities.”  He said its Welsh location did not hinder global operations, and applauded the state aid available.

“The documentation associated with a major contract such as this is detailed and complex and the Assembly’s International business Wales team provided us with invaluable support in evaluating and interpreting the terms and conditions within the contract document,” he said.

“We aim to win further new business by attending important world-wide trade exhibitions with support from IBW as these events are attended by key players in the oil, gas and petrochemical industries. We also aim to move into new markets such as the nuclear and water treatment sectors.”

Another area the company may target is water treatment.

The business’s achievement won praise from Andrew Davies, Minister for Enterprise, Innovation and Networks.

Describing it as a “small, smart company that invested in research and development”, he said, “Flamgard is one of many highly specialised companies in Wales developing niche products and providing world-class expertise enabling them to trade and compete successfully internationally.

“Developing the export potential of Welsh companies is a key area for the Assembly Government and IBW was established to enable businesses to reach new overseas markets and help them win new business.

“Russia presents a major new market opportunity for companies particularly those working in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry but it can prove difficult to get a foothold into this market which is why I am particularly pleased the Assembly was able to provide support for Flamgard to win this significant contract.”

By  Ian Talley: WASHINGTON

The U.S. government will likely investigate to see if Royal Dutch Shell’s (RDSA) upstream services agreement for a $4.3 billion liquefied natural gas project in southern Iran violates its sanctions laws, a State department spokesman said Monday.

The deal may become the next test case for the State Department, accused by the new Democrat-controlled Congress as having been too lax in applying laws that prohibit investment in Iran.

Current U.S. law bars companies from doing more than $20 million a year in business with Iran, and since the project is likely to exceed the parameters, State Department spokesman Scott McCormack said he “was sure” the government “will take a look at this particular deal.”

Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, said the State Department has not taken any action against companies under the Iran sanctions act since the law has been on the books, instead choosing to use the right to waive action.

But several analysts, including Berman, think the new Democrat controlled Congress will increasingly put pressure on the President’s administration to apply the sanctions act as a diplomatic alternative to a military strike designed to interrupt Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

Shell announced the project, which is being developed with Spanish oil company Repsol (REP) and is currently at the feasibility stage, over the weekend. A spokesman said Shell expected a final decision in about a year.

“If there is an investment greater than a certain amount, as specified under U.S. law, then our folks, our lawyers take a look at it and the policymakers take a look at it and see if there’s any further steps that we, as a government, take,” McCormack said.

He said he wouldn’t speculate whether the government would take any further action.
As the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries second-largest producer, almost 60% of the state’s revenues are from oil and undermining development of its energy sector is seen as one way of putting pressure on the regime to stop its alleged nuclear weapons program.

Other companies, such as France’s Total SA (TOT), Norway’s Norsk Hydro ASA (NHY), Statoil ASA (STO) and Aker Kvaerner ASA (AKVER.OS) have signed energy deals within the past few years, with investment levels well over the $20 million threshold and no U.S. government action under the Iran sanctions act.

Washington-based research and consulting firm, Conflict Securities Advisory Group, estimates that there are more than 20 companies currently in violation of the Iran sanctions act.

But, said Berman, “Congress is much more hawkish” on sanctions, especially with leading Democrats pushing for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis rather than a military strike, and will give the administration less flexibility to use its waiver rights.

Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee said at a hearing on the Iran nuclear situation in early January, “The administration needs to enforce the Iran Sanctions Act to make sure that companies which invest in Iran’s energy sector pay a painful price in relations with the United States.”

“This law remains ignored,” Lantos said, but said amendments to a re-certification of the bill last year means, “the administration will either have to impose biting sanctions or attempt to give Congress persuasive and compelling reasons as to why it is continuing to ignore them.”
Lantos’ committee will meet Wednesday to consider the Iran imbroglio again, where the Congressman will press for additional sanctions, a spokeswoman said.

The ranking Republican on the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, has already said she would be introducing this session two new pieces of sanctions legislation that would penalize companies investing in Iran.

Congress has also asked the State Department to investigate a potential $16 billion LNG deal between the National Iranian Oil Company and the China National Offshore Oil Corp.

“I can assure you that this committee will hold the administration’s feet to the fire, demanding biting sanctions,” Lantos said.

Berman said the waiver of the sanctions act over the past decade “makes for a remarkable political statement…consistently prioritizing bilateral trade issues over sanctions.”

If the sanctions act was used against China, “it would make them very mad and potential start a trade war.”

Andrew Davenport, Vice President at Conflict Securities Advisory Group, said the government has instead been focusing more on capital markets. Through its newly created terrorism financial intelligence team, the Treasury Department has been able to prompt major banks such as Credit Suisse (CS) to stop their financial interactions with Iranian banks because of the reputational risk involved.

Davenport says, however, that the more stringent language added to the Iran sanctions act late last year, “gives the Administration a lot less wiggle room” to waive the law.

But Congress, considering recent United Nations Security Council sanctions weak, is actively considering other sanctions options and legislation, particularly some which would target its energy sector and the country’s gasoline imports. Iran imports about 40% of its demand for refined petroleum products, and subsidizes much of the cost for consumers.

According to several Congressional aides, more sanctions legislation focusing on foreign oil companies investing in Iran are expected to be proposed this session.

Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Ed Crooks, London
January 31, 2007

THE US authorities would “take a look at” a controversial agreement signed by Royal Dutch Shell which could ultimately lead to a multi-billion-dollar investment in Iran, a US State Department official said.

Shell and its partner, Repsol of Spain, have signed a service agreement with the Iranian Government to continue work on developing blocks 13 and 14 of the giant South Pars gas field, despite mounting international pressure over the country’s nuclear program.

US legislation permits President George W. Bush to take action against non-US companies investing in Iran’s energy sector.

However, because of concerns over an extra-territorial trade dispute and the risk of further alienating allies, no foreign companies have been penalised to date under the Iran Libya Sanctions Act and the subsequent Iran Freedom Support Act.

The US, however, is tightening sanctions on Iranian institutions and encouraging European governments to do the same.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that US government lawyers and policy makers would take a look at the Shell deal, to see whether to take any action.

“If there’s an investment greater than a certain amount, as specified in US law, then our lawyers take a look at it and the policy makers take a look at it, and see if there’s any further steps that we, as a government, take,” he said.

Mr McCormack refused to speculate on what sanctions Repsol and Shell would face if they went through with the South Pars investment. If the project went ahead, it would involve a plant to produce liquefied natural gas to be sold in Europe and Asia.

A final decision on whether to proceed is expected in the first quarter of next year.

The agreement does not put a figure on the value of the project. Shell and its partners are still working on cost estimates. But it was suggested in Iran at the weekend that it could be worth $US10 billion ($13 billion).

Shell and Repsol would each have 25 per cent of the project, with the National Iranian Oil Co holding 50 per cent.

Iran holds the world’s second largest gas reserves, after Russia. Phases 13 and 14 of South Pars are estimated to hold 27,700 billion cubic feet – enough to meet the world’s demand for more than three months.

Shell also announced the sale of one of its US refineries and 250 petrol stations for $US1.63 billion, bringing to almost $US10 billion the amount it has raised from selling downstream assets in the past four years.

It has sold the refinery, south of Los Angeles, and petrol stations in the area to Tesoro, a Texas-based company that becomes the second biggest refiner on the US west coast as a result of the deal.

By Stuart Hampson: Published: January 31 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 31 2007 02:00

An invitation in 1992 to join a group of leaders from 25 big UK companies to look at the role of business in a changing world would normally have seemed instantly resistible. But the facts that the invitation came from the Royal Society of Arts, that Sir Anthony Cleaver of IBM was chairing the inquiry and that the list of other individuals who had already signed up was impressive all made me think again.I am glad I did.

Back in 1992 there was little argument that we were in a changing world. The Berlin Wall had fallen. Disasters, such as Bhopal and Exxon Valdez, had raised awareness of the power of big companies to cause massive environmental damage. International competition was intensifying, technology was developing and the big worry among UK business leaders was the lack of productivity and competitiveness. Margaret Thatcher had weakened the grip of trade unions. The Cadbury Committee, established in the wake of Robert Maxwell’s theft of the Mirror Group pensions, heralded a new public emphasis on corporate governance.

Our interim report, published in 1994, highlighted the incredible wastefulness of business structures based on conflict rather than constructive relationships. The shibboleth of “shareholder value” – regardless of the significance of other stakeholders – was eroding performance. Our conclusion that future leaders needed to focus on relationships, reputation and knowledge seemed controversial at the time and obvious soon afterwards.

The inquiry report described this as an inclusive approach to success – using the word specifically to mean that long-term success would need companies to include in that definition the contribution of its people, its customers, its suppliers and the community it affected – but not to forget its shareholders. This earned Tomorrow’s Company the honour of being attacked by The Economist, which accused us of woolly thinking.

The inquiry’s final report came a year later. It warned business about the fragility of its “licence to operate”. In the month following its publication, Shell experienced reputational meltdown over Brent Spar – and an Economist leader now endorsed our approach and warned business to pay heed.

Although the John Lewis Partnership is best known for being owned on behalf of our employees, since 1929 our constitution has required us to take account of our suppliers, customers and local community. Our record, in terms of growth in a hugely competitive retail sector, but more especially our exceptional customer loyalty and respect from our own providers of finance, gave other inquiry members encouragement that we were not running up a blind alley.

We had started by talking about a changing world and thinking had indeed moved on since we first met, with growing interest in “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). I have always been convinced, however, that if the message of Tomorrow’s Company was to be effective it had to be championed by the finance director rather than the CSR director; it cannot be an optional extra for companies looking to polish their public image.

It is easy to say that Tomorrow’s Company now represents mainstream thinking. The “inclusive approach” was thoroughly examined by the committee that reviewed the UK’s tangled web of company law and the concept of “enlightened shareholder value” – taking into account the interests of employees, customers, shareholders and the community at large – provided the basis for the massive companies bill that was passed last year.

The law now provides the conditions for business success, but its achievement will continue to depend on leadership with long-term focus. Private equity funds have undoubtedly shown how money can be released and companies can be restructured, but big question marks still hang over whether such restructuring is a recipe for long-term survival. Building a business is hard work and requires commitment to see through the ups and downs of commercial life. It is a frame of mind that seems less and less in evidence as executive incentive is skewed towards quick rewards and career progression.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that it is in Britain’s interest to have companies that know what they stand for and that see their culture and their values as a competitive advantage. Tomorrow’s Company still remains relevant for the companies of tomorrow.

Sir Stuart Hampson is chairman of John Lewis Partnership and a patron of Tomorrow’s Company, the business-led think-tank that celebrates its 10th anniversary this week

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

By Graham Bowley
Published: January 31 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 31 2007 02:00

The urge to predict the future goes back to the oracle in the temple at Delphi, to Nostradamus uttering his gnomic quatrains and to the Romans consulting the entrails of slaughtered bulls.

Today, those working in the “futurist” profession glean insights from more earthly sources, such as fringe newspapers, websites and newsletters; from human experts; and from the world around us – which in futurist parlance contains “memories of the future”.

Keen to distinguish themselves from palm readers, astrologers and tea-leaf gazers, futurists also emphasise that they are not simply management consultants, political pollsters or market researchers, who also peddle predictions. Whereas those more traditional analysts are usually concerned only with their own sector or political context, futurists turn unashamedly to what lies, broadly, ahead. And by carving out an increasingly valued role in the corporate world, the future of futurology has started looking decidedly brighter.

“I think the key distinctions in what futurists provide vis-à-vis more traditional consultancies is a longer time-frame, consideration of a greater range of alternatives, and a greater willingness to think out of the box,” says futurist Andy Hines. He completed a master’s degree in “futures studies” in Texas in 1987, started his first job in a Washington DC-based futures consultancy in 1990 and now works from his home in Houston.

The list of companies and organisations that use futurology to guide product development or strategy include Nokia, Procter & Gamble, Philips, Siemens and DaimlerChrysler. The European Commission has a couple of foresight units. In September, the New York Times appointed its own in-house futurist. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has a futures research programme, and the UK government has a Foresight programme, with a £2m annual budget, 30 full-time staff and a “horizon-scanning” centre.

The future is so complex, say futurists, that it cannot possibly be foreseen by a single expert who concentrates only on his or her field.

Futurists have three key strategies: careful examination, “scenario-building” and “visioning”. The first involves gazing more closely than most at what really goes on. The principle is that the future is already more or less here, if only we could see it. “Eventually you start to spot what is important,” says Alister Wilson, an Edinburgh-based futurist working with Foresight. “You can see things coming before the competition.”

Shell was one of the first companies to adopt futures thinking, incorporating it into planning in the 1970s. Pierre Wack, one of the fathers of futurism and a man who called it “the gentle art of re-perceiving”, got Shell to see that oil production was not just about economics and technology but also about politics.

Today, Cho Khong, Shell’s chief political analyst, explains how “re-perceiving” helps futurism’s broad approach. “You begin by going around asking all sorts of people, ‘What are the questions that we should be asking?’ Then you bring in experts to debate and discuss them further.” The rigour of storytelling makes you fill in the gaps and realise what you don’t know.

Another name for this story-telling is “scenario building”, developed in the 1950s by Herman Kahn, an influential cold-war analyst at the Rand Corporation. Scenario building begins with the observation on which futurists pride themselves. If you stare at a thing long enough, you eventually see the fundamental forces driving it, which you can count on being present in the future. These fundamental forces are like scaffolding, on which you build two or three contrasting stories (the scenarios) about what the future might hold.

For example, an ageing UK population is a given. But how does this interact with, say, oil prices and the future of tourism? One scenario might be low oil prices and a booming market for homes in France. In a second, high-oil-price scenario, on the other hand, you wouldn’t buy aim to become a landlord in the Languedoc.

Futurists and their clients identify warning signals in each scenario and then watch the world closely for these signals – hints that one of the foreseen futures is actually unfolding. A 2003 article by Leonard Fuld in the Harvard Business Review explains how Visa, in the late 1990s, fearing a threat from online payment systems, built four scenarios, including one in which a venture capital-backed start-up began a new web payment system and defeated Visa, and one where online rivals fizzled out and failed.

It began to track signals that might suggest scenario number one was beginning, such as the number of online businesses that signed up to the new web systems, the level of advertising by start-up rivals and the capital being raised by them. By 2001, all those measures were declining. As a result of its scenario planning, says Mr Fuld, Visa had not rushed in to invest in its own online system and had saved itself millions.

The final strategy, visioning, involves not only working out what could happen but what you want to happen. This emerged out of a strain of futures thinking in western Europe after the second world war. Nations that prospered were those, like the US, that had a clear vision of where they were heading.

Participation is an important part of visioning – whole companies or entire communities come together to consider the best future. Getting them all to agree often then ensures that that future gets carried out.

The futurists’ strategies – thinking of the future in idealistic terms, storytelling, and quiet but intense observation – set them apart from their mainstream peers. But those same tactics might also be the reason futurists struggle for respect: theirs is a creative view of the world – almost a novelist’s view – which can keep them on the periphery in the square-shouldered realms of business and politics.

Futurists argue that scanning their sources takes perseverance and a certain skill – “an innocent eye”, according to John Naisbitt, one of the gurus of futures thinkers, who says he reads newspapers for six hours each day and travels endlessly. Tim Mack, the president of the World Future Society, calls it a “gimlet eye”.

However, futurists also struggle against the obvious fact that they are not always right about the future. Looking back on the first 30 years of the World Future Society, Ed Cornish, its founder, found that of the 34 predictions it made in 1967, 23 came true but 11 did not – a moon landing but not a moon base, human organ transplants but not “most urbanites living in high-rise buildings by 1986″ or “lab-created life by 1989″.

Futurism is sometimes frowned on by other professions and academic fields. According to the Oxford-based consultant in futures research Wendy Schultz, most suspicions stem from the fact that futurists are interdisciplinary, encroaching on others’ territory. But there have also been internal factions and rivalries in the profession. “We are not good at organising,” says Mr Hines. “The big problem we have is that people don’t know this still even exists.”

Just give them time.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

31.01.2007 01:28

Press Release

Today, supporters for the Anti-Shell Campaign took their protest to the Irish Embassy. The action was to target the Irish State; Shell; Statoil and Marathon who are attempting to construct a dangerous and experimental onshore raw gas pipeline and refinery in County Mayo; a beautiful remote part of North West Ireland.

There is massive opposition to this proposed pipeline by the local community, Ireland and internationally. A campaign of direct action against this plan has been ongoing since 2005.

The action at the Embassy today is to demonstrate that this polluting project will not just affect the area in which it is to be built, but will contribute to the ongoing organised destruction of the planet by Shell. The action is in solidarity with the people directly affected by this unprecedented raw gas pipeline, which has been condemned as posing an unacceptable risk to health and safety.

The Irish State actively encourages the Shell led consortium – Norwegian owned Statoil and U.S. owned Marathon – by facilitating stages of the construction project, including the changing of laws to allow the project go ahead. These companies are tax exempt, thus there is no financial benefit to the Irish people. Shell are also deploying hundreds of police, who daily intimidate people and use violence to deter them, especially at recent demonstrations.

The action at the Embassy today is to show the concern which many people share about the corruption and complicity of the Irish Dáil, using its power to sell out the interests of the Irish people, putting personal profit before public interest, safety and health.

No injuries in incident as crews contain vapour to plant site

by Dave S. Clark
Wednesday January 31, 2007

Residents and businesses in northern Strathcona County were in lockdown on Sunday afternoon due to the release of an explosive chemical at the Shell Scotford Upgrader.

According to Erin Carrier, a spokesperson for Alberta Environment, the plant began leaking a chemical called polyethylbenzene. Beverlee Loat, spokesperson for Shell Chemical, said the leak was noticed at about 12:15 p.m.

Carrier said once the release was noticed, Shell enacted its emergency call out system, calling over 185 residents and businesses in the area and notifying them to stay inside in an internal room where there are no windows. Carrier said since the chemical is explosive, all precautions were taken.

Carrier said that crews at the plant began to fog the leak, by dousing it with water.
By 3:40 p.m. the leak had been isolated and Alberta Environment were on scene to investigate.

At 4:45 p.m. the leak was stopped and air monitoring at the plant and in the surrounding area found that there were no adverse effects and the all-clear was given.

Loat said air monitoring occurred throughout the incident and no hydrocarbons from the leak were found outside of the plant site.

RCMP were also called to the scene to block off traffic. They closed sections of Range Road 214 and Range Road 215 near the plant. The roads remained closed until about 5 p.m. after the all-clear was given.

There were no injuries in relation to the leak.

According to Loat, Shell is continuing to investigate the incident. She said there are several indications on why the leak may have happened but the investigation is still continuing. She said investigations into these types of incidents typically take a few weeks.

Shell has recently switched its emergency call-out system provider after the old system was deemed to be ineffective after two leaks at the upgrader in September.

Loat said it took the new provider about 10 minutes from start to finish, to notify all the surrounding people with a prerecorded message. A second message was also sent out to notify residents that everything was all-clear.

She said the company was satisfied with the performance but it will be getting feedback from the residents to get their thoughts on the new system.

Mechanical failure was the cause of the previous two leaks

dclark@sherwoodparknews.com 

31 Jan 2007
Firdaus Abdullah, Dennis Wong and Adrian David

KUCHING: For the second time in three months, a helicopter en route to an offshore oil facility has crashed into the sea, this time off Bintulu.

A 26-year-old technician remains missing while seven others and the Super Puma L2’s two pilots were rescued in choppy waters about 40km out in the South China Sea yesterday.

The high seas drama started when the transport helicopter, chartered by Petronas Carigali and operated by Malaysian Helicopter Services Sdn Bhd (MHS), crashed in bad weather on its way to the B18 platform in the Bayan Balingian oilfield.

Seven of the eight passengers and the two pilots were found by two Petronas rescue vessels sent from Miri but there was no trace of Irwan Fasla Aini Salihin as of Press time.

The survivors have been sent to the Bintulu Hospital for observation.

Fasla Aini is a technician with Dettech (M) Sdn Bhd, a Petronas contractor from Miri involved in maintenance work on the unmanned B18 mini-platform.

 It is understood the twin-engined aircraft experienced technical problems while on its landing approach and risked crashing into the platform.

Sources told the New Straits Times that the helicopter was minutes away from the platform when the pilot announced an “emergency” and ditched the aircraft.

“Such emergency procedures are standard practice and those who are required to fly to oil platforms must undergo such safety courses.

“Shortly before ditching the aircraft, the pilot had prepared the passengers for a crash landing at sea.

“The missing passenger might have been swept away by strong currents or he might have failed to get out of the helicopter before it sank,” the source from Bintulu said.

Department of Civil Aviation regional director Huang Tiong Poh said the helicopter was initially carrying 16 passengers heading to platforms D35 and B18.

“The helicopter departed from Miri airport at 1.08pm heading to the D35 oil platform to drop off eight passengers and was heading towards the B18 mini-platform when it lost contact with the control tower in Kota Kinabalu at 2.40pm.

“The copter never reached B18,” Huang said, adding that a search and rescue operation was immediately mounted by MHS, Petronas and Shell teams from Miri and Bintulu.

According to the Meteorological Department, sea conditions at the crash site were stormy with wind speeds of between 40 to 60 kilometres per hour, and waves of up to 4.5 metres.

A brief Petronas statement confirmed the ditching of the aircraft, that one passenger was missing and search and rescue operations were still going on.

MHS and Petronas officials declined further comment.

Federal Marine Police chief Senior Assistant Commissioner II Datuk Jalaludin Abdul Rahman said search and rescue operations were launched three hours later, after police were informed of the incident by Petronas Carigali officials in Kuala Lumpur.

“We immediately alerted our marine base in Sarawak which despatched PA29 speed-boats to the scene. By that time a Petronas Carigali tugboat had already picked up the nine survivors, who were then transferred to our boats.”

Jalaludin said owing to failing light, police would continue search and rescue operations today with the assistance of scuba divers and additional boats.

“If need be, we will summon the assistance of other agencies to find the missing person and recover the wreckage of the helicopter for the investigating team,” he said.

Department of Civil Aviation director-general Datuk Kok Soo Chon said a probe team was being assembled to investigate the cause of the crash.

Yesterday’s crash was the fourth in just over a year involving helicopters belonging to MHS.

On Nov 5 last year, 20 men were plucked from the sea after the Super Puma helicopter they were in, which was chartered by ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Malaysia Inc, went down near an oil rig.

The co-pilot, Ismail Bakar, 43, was among those rescued but pilot Captain Mohd Salleh Teguh from Johor perished in the crash.

The helicopter was believed to have developed technical problems while approaching the company’s Tapis B platform, about 103 nautical miles off Dungun in Terengganu. It crashed at 11.45am.

The helicopter had taken off from the Kertih Airport in Kemaman an hour earlier.

On Feb 23, the engine of a Super Puma helicopter caught fire as it was about to take off from Miri airport.

All the 14 oil rig workers and the pilot were unhurt.

On June 18 last year, a similar helicopter crashed in the South China Sea while flying to the B11 oil platform off Bintulu. There were no casualties.

KUCHING, Malaysia, (UPI) — A technician was missing after a helicopter carrying employees to offshore oil drilling platforms crashed Tuesday in the South China Sea off Malaysia.

Seven passengers and two pilots were rescued, the New Straits Times reported. The missing man was identified as Irwan Fasla Aini Salihin, a technician with a Petronas contractor.

The crash occurred in stormy weather with high winds and waves. The passenger might have failed to escape from the helicopter before it sank or have been swept away after getting out.

The helicopter had dropped passengers off at one platform and was heading for a second one more than 20 miles out to sea. The pilots, realizing the helicopter was in trouble, warned passengers to prepare for ditching in the sea. They were rescued by a ship sent by Petronas and taken to Bintulu Hospital for observation.

Nine people were injured and one remains missing after a helicopter carrying staff of Malaysian national oil company Petronas crashed in deep seas off the eastern state of Sarawak on Borneo, reports said Wednesday.

The Super Puma L2 helicopter, carrying 10 people including two pilots, was reported to have crashed Tuesday en route to an oil platform, the official Bernama news agency said.

Nine occupants on board the chopper survived the crash, but one passenger remains missing, the report said.

“When the helicopter crashed into the sea, seven of the workers and the pilots scrambled out before the it sank,” a source was quoted as saying by the Star daily.

Petronas released a statement several hours after the incident, confirming the accident.

The company declined to give details of the victims.

State marine police, a police air-wing unit and volunteers have launched a search for the missing passenger, Bernama said.

The crash is the third involving a Super Puma helicopter in the last two years.

© 2007 DPA