Bill Cahir's article (February 3,1989) deserves a response, not only for his twisting of facts, but also because as a pro-development Alaskan, I would like to see oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

I worked one summer at the Kuparuk River oilfield, a few hundred miles west of the ANWR, and thousands of miles away from Penn State.

The impact of pipelines, drilling pads, haul roads, and even Central Processing Facilities on the fauna is minimal. Strict environmental regulations, perhaps too strict, are heavily enforced.

From 1975 to 1986, the caribou population around Prudhoe Bay, the start terminal of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), increased from 5,000 to over three times that amount. Obviously then, TAPS did not adversely affect caribou birth rates.

And caribou mobility has not been hampered with pipelines crossing their migratory routes. At costs ranging from $25,000 to $75,000 gravel ramps were installed for caribou to cross over TAPS.

As for the ANWR, only 1/2 of 1 percent of surface area will be directly affected.

And if the ANWR cannot be developed, be prepared to have a higher deficit from imported oil. The February 2,1989 page 1 New York Times says that "Americans thus face increasing dependence on imported oil, and ultimately, higher prices as foreign producers gain more control over the market."

Finally, according to the January 20 1989 page 1 New York Times, the land in the ANWR is to be swapped for virgin wilderness owned by Alaskan Native corporations, thus giving the Natives some economic control in return for thousands of acres of land untouched by man.

TAPS has shown that it is possible to explore sensitive areas and extract petroleum with minimal damage. If Bill doesn't believe me, have him go to Prudhoe to see for himself.