This is not soley a trade off between job creation and "environmentalism", and resource extraction is not always net win for a local economy. Also, public land

This is not soley a trade off between job creation and "environmentalism", and resource extraction is not always net win for a local economy. Also, public land is involved, so consider that the public has a legitimate interest in the outcome then it might not have in interfering with a mutually agreed upon transaction between private parties. There is a lot of money to be made from resource extraction, but most of it does not accrue to workers or local residents. In many cases, employment increases for a while, which benefits a minority of citizens while the external costs of business are socialized, and then eventually the part of the resource that is cost-effective to capture is exhausted, commodity prices change, or for whatever reason production stops. Meanwhile, there has been less incentive for the state to develop a diverse economy based on taxing earned income then there would have been without the income from selling extraction rights, and everyone who lives near the project is back where they started: the jobs are gone, but the public is often left with a big mess to clean up. In addition there are other major employment sectors and stakeholders that may be negatively impacted, such as fisheries and tourism, and legally guaranteed native subsistence rights. In other words, the kind of industry often results in a "resouce cursed" economy and polity. I grew up in Alaska, and I own land in Southwestern Alaska. There was a closed mine in my home town. The reality of the situation is, the resource is so valuable that as a political matter, it's virtually impossible for state or local residents to prevent the state from selling extraction rights on public land because the local citizens can't compete financially with an out of state lobby. Several of our state politicians have been convicted of accepting bribes from private companies. There is simply so much money to be made that extraction projects on public land are almost inevitable, with or without the consent of the public. I'm not certainly not opposed in general to mining or oil production, but if the resource is public, the decision should be made democratically. Should the state sell mineral rights on public land if the majority of it's population doesn't want to? Shouldn't people who live near the public land get a vote?