You are here

Congresswoman Bachmann Would Support Drilling For Oil In Everglades National Park


It's been nearly four years since Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he would support drilling for oil beneath Everglades National Park if there were substantial reserves there.

Well, Mr. Thompson soon left that race, but another GOP presidential hopeful says she'd do the same thing if it could be done "responsibly."

U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was quoted the other day in an Associated Press story that she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it.

"The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness. Whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region, or whether that's in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is," she said. "Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can't responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn't do it."

Those comments immediately drew a reply from the Everglades Foundation.

"NRA card-carrying hunters, fishermen, waterfowlers, and other outdoors enthusiasts do not want to see oil drilling in their Everglades wildlife paradise. In addition, the Everglades is the source of fresh, clean drinking water for more than 7 million Floridians," the organization said. "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”


Thanks for the heads up on Thunderbear--I had not heard about it before.  I did not realize that the span was in such a state of disrepair!  I have to admit that from what I remember in reading the original article awhile back, it sounded like the bridge's sole purpose was to support more traffic for Bachmann's constituency.  I would agree that if its safety rating is that poor, it does need to be replaced; but Bachmann's way of charging ahead because it what she wants, all others be damned, is still wrong and still strikes to the heart of the matter 'refuted' by the first anonymous and ebuck.

I keep it bookmarked and just read the most recent yesterday.

I'd say he is more "unofficially the official spokesman for all of us".

Toothdoc, if you want a full, unbiased report on Michelle Bachmann and the bridge, try Googling up Thunderbear and check out the latest issue.

Thunderbear is the official spokesbear for all of us who treasure our parks.  His words cannot be disupted because his factual research is far more thorough than that of any of our Congresscritters.

One thing that I have not seen brought up -- surprisingly since it relates to and was covered by this site – to exemplify how Bachmann "goes off", is her single-minded drive to put a bridge through the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.  The first anonymous poster said that she operates by wanting to see all the facts and not just knee-jerk to a conclusion without considering all the facts, and I point to her handling of this bridge debate to be exactly the opposite.  If my recollection is correct, the NPS stated that the proposed bridge would have direct adverse effects on the "wild" nature of the river, which I believe has some "wild/scenic designation" and thus the protections afforded it by its enabling legislation, as well as a whole litany of other legalese that I cannot recall.  But these "facts" held no sway with her, who still wanted to push forward with this piece of "pork" for her constituents.  Oh and by the way, isn't she one of the faces of the Tea Party--you know the ones that are supposed to be against "pork spending" and everything that goes along with it in Washington.  Rebutt or refute that if you can.

 I am no Bachman fan but
The Quote was,  she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it. This is a reasonable statement. Oil dependency is a political hot potato right, now so I would be curious to see what the current President would say, if asked.
So now lets talk about religion... Just kidding

Well Rick - can you show us where she hasn't?  But then its kind of moot, since she hasn't made up her mind in the first place on this issue - unless you know something the rest of us don't.


I've yet to see a situation where 'MB' changed her mind when given facts. 

Jim - An interesting list.  But for the exception of item 5 those seem like arguments against drilling at all (many of which have equally compelling counter arguments) and have nothing to do with national parks.
As to item 5 you have made a number of assumptions including 1) the resources are small and 2) natural and scenic resources will be irrevocably lost.  If those assumptions are true then we probably shouldn't drill - and MB may reach the same conclusion given those facts.  But if your assumptions are wrong - i.e there are huge resources that can be tapped with minimal environmental disruption then it would be foolish not to develop those resources.  Rather than just say NO without knowing the facts - lets find out.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments