Arctic Refuge drilling controversy, Wiki:
"Traditionally, Alaskan residents, trade unions, and business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while environmental groups and many within the Democratic Party have traditionally opposed it. Among native Alaskan tribes, support is mixed."

Remember this is federal land, so it's a matter decided in US Congress, not by Alaska's govt.

Further down, estimated reserve:
"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area...
Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel "

Note if oil prices are higher than $40, that means it become economically possible to extract more total quantity of oil- or obviously, if other factors lowered the normal costs it would mean the same thing. Continuing:

"the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

In other words they saying one could get on average a million barrels a day- keep that in mind.

Different reference source about different Alaska oil field:
At Prudhoe Bay, average daily production last year was about 450,000 barrels a day, a 72 percent drop from its peak.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601742.html

Now, about Alaska Permanent Fund [as described by a Lefty]:
"Hands up who has heard of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) and the dividend flowing from it. Not many; but remember the name. Its counterculture approach to ownership of natural resources is spreading and, when the pendulum swings, could replace the private, competitive and exploitative model of ownership and revenue collection.

The APF was created in 1976 after oil was discovered in Alaska. The constitution mandated the government to ensure that Alaska's oil provided "the maximum benefit to the people". The oil was defined as belonging to all the people of Alaska, not just to those who owned the land where it was found. Each citizen receives a dividend cheque each year, based on oil royalties paid into the APF, a public trust fund, by the oil corporations. The first cheques were issued in 1982, when each citizen received $1 000 (R7 150) for the year.
Alaska's government puts 25 percent of oil royalties and taxes into the APF and the rest into its revenue for normal expenditures. There is no income tax and no sales tax.

Since the fund was established, Alaska has become the only US state with a decreasing wealth gap. There is virtually no unemployment. The dividend enables flourishing land-based local economies.
By 2000 each US citizen of Alaska was receiving nearly $2 000...." {per year]
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=2516&fArticleId=3576329

So, basically Alaska is the socialist dream of heaven- and is similar to Norway. And by opening up the
ANWR one be continuing and adding to this Alaska socialist dream land. And in addition, could be used as a foot in the door, to open up the rest the US to this socialist dream [because it is dealing with federal land- and off the coast of America in federal controlled "land" are vast oil reserves.

Now, I ask you why are the supposedly lefty Dems fighting against ANWR. Could it actually be possibly that instead of Reps being in the pockets of big nasty US oil companies- it's actually the Dems?
Or do you imagine that dems really do care about the non-existent problem of killing caribou?