To the editor:

I had been a proponent of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but Andy Keller's opinion piece has caused me to reconsider. How naïve for me to think that the responsible production of "8 percent of the projected domestic demand through 2050" from U.S. sources would be good, though minimal. And why bother with the development of ANWR oil now when that "oil could not be extracted for at least seven years."

Thank goodness the strict preservationist minority in the U.S. Senate has been able to thwart the majority by filibustering any possible responsible development of ANWR for at least the past seven years, or that oil production would be on line now. How unfortunate that would have been, reducing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on domestic oil production which would have inadvertently dampened the subsequent price gouging by big oil. I am starting to appreciate what the preservationists have accomplished.

If we allow 2,000 acres in ANWR to be affected by oil development, only 18,998,000 acres, or an area roughly the size of South Carolina, will remain unspoiled for those who can afford a guided wilderness trip to that remote area. How could I have been so heedless of their selfless desires?

George Burgess / Fairbanks