Petitioner demands that we issue a writ of mandamus directed to respondent,-' requiring him to allow a F.R.Civ.P., *641 Rule 12(b) (2) motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.

Petitioner, a Texas corporation, was the builder of the TRIPLE CROWN, a vessel which sank off the California coast in November, 1968. In the main action, pending in the Central District of California, multiple plaintiffs seek damages for injuries, property damage and the deaths of ten persons aboard the vessel at the time of the sinking. Petitioner is one of the defendants.

The sole issue is whether petitioner had the “minimum contacts” with the Central District within the meaning of that phrase as utilized in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd. v. Hol-lingsworth, 417 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1969).

Petitioner knew that some of the vessels it had constructed had been placed in oil exploration activities off the California coast. Additionally, the record discloses that petitioner had been purchasing steel in California for use in the construction of its ships for a number of years and that the practice continued until after the institution of this litiga-ion. The steel was shipped from California to petitioner’s yard in Port Arthur, Texas. The annual steel purchases amounted to approximately $50,000.00. On the entire record, petitioner’s contacts were sufficient to meet the requirements of International Shoe, Duple and the California case of Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 (1969). The fact that the TRIPLE CROWN might be a different type of vessel and utilized for another, but related, purpose is of no significance. All types were used in oil exploration activities off the California coast. Although Duple involved the construction of the Hawaii long-arm statute, the constitutional principles there recognized are controlling on the record here presented.

If, during the course of pre-trial, it appears that the inconvenience of petitioner in having to defend itself in a foreign forum outweighs the interest of the plaintiffs in the pending action suing locally, the district judge has a wide discretion in granting a change of venue to petitioner’s home forum.

The petition for a writ of mandamus must be denied.

It is so ordered.