A Gallup Poll in May found that 57 percent of Americans favor “drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas,” although it didn’t specifically ask about ANWR. (Alaskans, who see an immediate payoff to their economy from drilling in taxes and jobs, overwhelmingly support tapping into the refuge.)

Polls by the Pew Center found sizable national shifts on the specific issue of Arctic refuge drilling just this year. In February, when gasoline prices averaged less than $3 a gallon, just 42 percent favored ANWR drilling. Four months and $1 a gallon later, a full 50 percent were ready to suck oil from the refuge. And growing support could be found among all age groups, political affiliations and education levels, even among self-described liberals.

“You’ve got a public that’s much more concerned about gas prices and the financial bottom line,” said Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

That has given drilling advocates hope for a similar shift on Capitol Hill.

Consider the changed attitude of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican with a reputation for supporting environmental causes. This spring he reversed himself and now supports opening ANWR to oil development.

Still, geologists believe much could be sucked from the new petroleum frontier. Oil worth at least $1 trillion likely sits below the refuge. It could add 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel to the daily U.S. supply, or an increase of 20 percent of domestic production. Over the estimated 30-year life of the oil field, drilling could deliver between 5 billion and 20 billion barrels of oil.

Yet if drilling were OK’d today, the government estimates it still might take 10 years before oil began to flow. And at its peak, the coastal oil field might pump just 1 million of the 87 million barrels of oil harvested daily worldwide.