[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"What part of the terminal being 14 miles offshore is troublesome?"

You and Danae should learn to read before you start mouthing off.

The problem isn't the terminal, but the traffic it will create in an area that is already congested.

I think they should build the terminal somewhere along the Columbia, or in the waters off northern Washington state.

I don't live in Southern California anymore and I'm 33 miles from the ocean. Build the damned terminal where you choose. Oh, and may you have fair winds and following seas.

Michael Frazier

[MAWG]

There are proven reserves off the coast of Ca. in relatively shallow water that would satisfy this countrys need for oil for many years to come. The taxes the state could collect on the oil would not only balance their budget but create a huge surplus. We drill for oil off the coast of Tx and La. What is so different about Ca.?

[JRios1968]

I think they should build the terminal somewhere along the Columbia, or in the waters off northern Washington state.

I don't live in Southern California anymore and I'm 33 miles from the ocean. Build the damned terminal where you choose. Oh, and may you have fair winds and following seas.

So...let me see if I get this straight. Let's not build it 14 miles offshore, because there is a lot of shipping traffic. However, we should build it at a river, inland (possibly), where the effects of any feasible accident or incident would be a lot more disastrous.

Is it me, or is your logic faulty?