Debate surrounding the Arctic National Wildlife Reservation has been going strong ever since the refuge was created in the 1960's. The central issue surrounding the refuge is whether or not a small portion of the coastline known as the 1002 Area should be opened to what Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski refers to as, "responsible energy development."

According to seismic survey's made in the area in years past the 1002 Area is estimated to house 5 to 16 million barrels of oil, enough to increase U.S. daily imports by 1 million barrels a day. With these estimated profits also come the hope and promise of jobs for Alaskan natives and an overall improvement to their local economy.

The Alaskan government is no stranger to drilling activities. Rules and regulations keep companies to a high standard of environmental protection. However, an example of a drilling sight that left no traces of development behind is yet to be recorded.

Another area developed in ANWR during the 1980's was an exploratory well on the Alaskan coast known as KIC-1. All precautions were taken and yet decades later the area where the site once starkly contrasts with the natural tundra surrounding it. Along with the environmental cost of KIC-1 information regarding whether or not the oil found was usable was kept from the Alaskan public.

Another issue surrounding the development of the 1002 Area is not only one of the possible environmental costs but also one of human rights, and the possible violation of the 1987 Porcupine Caribou Amendment.

The amendment is meant to protect the caribou herd and breeding grounds due to the herd's ritualistic, cultural, and dietary importance to the Gwich'in people native to both Canada and Alaska. The agreement to protect the heard is also recognized by the Canadian government.

Although the ban was lifted as of December 2017 the drilling process will not take place until government leases of the area are sold to oil companies. This could take an indefinite amount of time. The final decision to open ANWR wasn't made without extensive consideration of the many individuals and organizations that opposed the ban lift. Whether or not the Alaskan economy is strengthened and whether or not the short term profit outweighs the long term environmental damage only time will reveal.