I guess it all depends on one's perspective...my personal belief is there NEED to be places on this planet that are relatively untouched by man. There are so very few left...human activity of ANY kind has a definite impact, wherever it happens, and it is generally negative (except where forced to go in a repair damage already done) when it comes to wild places on the planet and the impact we have on the environment. There is a lot of shale oil trapped in the Rocky Mountains and other ranges in the Western US, and it is becoming economically viable to extract it...should we go into Rocky Mountain NP, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier NP, etc simply because they contain something that would make human life a little more comfortable for some finite period of time? At what point, and where, do you draw the line on a finite resource and focus on other alternatives? Just as I don't think we should always be at the top of the food chain (entering Grizzly country, Lion country, etc.), I don't think we should have unlimited access to the planet's resources for our own selfish needs, particularly when the cost is the loss of places untouched by our greedy hands and machinery.
It's not just about the oil in ANWAR...drilling in Texas is a hell of a lot different than drilling there. Building roads creates access by means other than two feet, or four. We are not talking about deer in this case, but one of the last remaining places for ALL things wild.
Just as I do now, I will support every effort made to keep man's hand off of places where wilderness still exists and stands any chance of remaining protected.