However much land you think we have, rethink that estimate

From what I can tell, everything going on in Washington right now is wishful thinking rather than environmental reality. The senators and lone representative for this state are hell-bent on auctioning off all the available land to out-of-state oil companies. I have replied to all their 'reassuring' e-mails to me, particularly the ones that give the "silly girl, you're just a poor, out-of-work biologist, and I'm a high-powered Congressperson, so you don't know what you're talking about' impression. The problem between biologists and politicians is that we think on different time lines. The politician thinks toward the next election, while I, upon hearing that the 'leak-proof' rock container we could use to sequester carbon dioxide would hold all the CO2 we could produce for the next 400 years, my first though was, "Great. What do we do after that?"
Each politician that has written to me has used the magic word 'economy.' "We must be in the forefront of economy, and drilling for oil will bring more money into the state." The state is not going to see very much of that money--the oil companies are from out-of-state, remember? Besides, oil is a finite resource, so what happens when all the oil is gone? We'll have a bunch of people either out of work or migrating to a different state with the oil companies. Those of us who stay, however, will be faced with an immense clean-up responsibility, not enough people to do it, and quite probably a number of extinctions. (Yes, I know oil companies are required to supply clean-up funds in some cases, but I'm not sure how well that works. My guess is that it works about as well as the mandate signed by President Clinton to get construction companies to mitigate wetland damage.)
Outdoor recreation brought upwards of $4 billion in the United States in 2006. I don't know what our share in that is, but a lot of people come to this state to hike, photograph, fish, and hunt. If oil rigs are built in those supposedly solitary areas, a lot of people will find outdoor recreation elsewhere. Our elected officials probably hope that once the oil is gone we can restore the land to what it was. Great thought, but easier said than done. As I have noted elsewhere, it is extremely time consuming and expensive to restore a landscape, and a lot of problems can crop up in the form of invasive species. Once the ground is denuded, it is easy for unwanted species to grow and it takes a lot of work to control them. That's partly why some scientists do not recommend using fire as a tool in sagebrush communities. Sagebrush is adapted to fire, but only once every 100-200 years, and it comes back very slowly. Meanwhile, a bunch of ruderals spring up, appropriate all the water and nutrients, and outcompete the bushes. It has been documented that sage grouse do not like to nest within more than a mile of a developed oil field, and usually prefer that there are no oil rigs within 3 miles. I can't blame them. I'm not fond of them, either. I'd prefer to hike a truly wild area without an oil rig every mile. In my opinion if you're in a developed area, it isn't a hike.
So will developed oil fields help the state's economy? Maybe for a little while, but it's not sustainable.