"). Since then, debates have grown throughout the US like weeds after a good rain storm. .
Although the debate of whether or not to drill there has ran for years now, only recently has it hit broad public interest at the national level. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, many wondered how US intervention in the East would affect gas import from the area. And even more recently, since US troops have entered the area and began war, those still in the states have seen a drastic increase in gas prices at the pump. With the drastic increase, the spotlight has changed to an interest in pursuing possible oil sites on US territory. And thus, the interest in ANWR has increased. And in the last few months there have been several votes in the Senate, and although close, they have blocked the requests of the proponents. Built on the foundation of the US's large dependency on oil and recent events, many push for the drilling. But based on the amount actually recoverable in ANWR and the impact exploration will have on the surrounding area, the detriments greatly outweigh the benefit of recovering natural US oil. .
A major claim from supporting proponents is that drilling there would decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Although it seems logical for the US to drill on its own turf to decrease dependence on imported oil, that would not be the case in ANWR. Proponents claim that there are 16 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered from the refuge's costal plain ("Should the US." 176), but the US Geological Survey says that there is less than a 1 in 20 chance that the costal plain contains that much oil, and only a portion of it would be economically recoverable (3). Recently, the USGS determined that the amount of oil in ANWR reservoirs would not make a dent. The amount that could be recovered economically - that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold - is roughly 3.
