It is my understanding that there have been many attempts to locate liquefied natural gas facilities in different places in California, but with no success. I hear other communities rejected their proposals to locate there. Is this true and if so, what was their reasoning? Do we know? Should we know?

I also keep hearing reports that many people in Boston are not happy that LNG is there, and that their mayor is up in arms about the trouble LNG is for their harbor. I wonder if this is true or just rumor stuff. If any of it is true, what are the facts about this? Should we know about this, do you think? Should we be considering this information as we ponder what is best for our region?

I also wonder, if much or most of this LNG is destined for California, why in the world they wouldn’t locate the receiver terminal closer to the final destination? Wouldn’t Coos Bay be a more logical choice? Or Crescent City, Calif., Eureka, Calif., or Oakland, Calif. – you know, closer to where the stuff is going to end up.

Lastly, I read that the county staff says “no way on LNG” at Bradwood (“County staff on LNG: No way,” The Daily Astorian, Oct. 16). Do they also mean at Warrenton as well? Why would some of the members of our commission favor LNG here in the face of all the community opposition and staff opposition? And have those commissioners done the needed research on the questions I raise regarding California and Boston?

I would like to hear from the commissioners on the points I raise. I’m guessing many others in our region would also like your replies, as well.

And by the way, for the commissioners who favor siting an LNG facility in our region, would it be too much to ask for you to simply state just why you think it’s a good idea to have such facilities here on our river?

I’m darn curious to know what each of you think about this, and why.

Richard Johnson

Warrenton