Bush Offshore Oil Policy Being Stymied by Spills : Environment: Aides say he is certain to approve additional drilling. But repeated tanker disasters make any announcement politically risky.

President Bush promised once again Wednesday that he will make a decision “soon” on whether to allow oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts, a pledge that the President and his aides have been making on and off since December.

“It’s a very hot item,” Bush said when asked about the delay during a session at the White House with representatives of regional newspapers.

Bush insisted that he has not yet received all the information he needs to make a decision on the oil drilling controversy. Aides concede, however, that a chief reason Bush has not received the final paper work is because he does not want it now.

Indeed, the long-delayed decision on drilling has become a classic case of the problem the White House faces in trying to stage-manage the news, particularly when the news is likely to be unpopular.

Polls show that residents of coastal states, particularly Californians, oppose expanded drilling by large margins. By contrast, Bush, who once made his living in the oil business, has said over and over that drilling offshore is necessary for the nation’s security and can be done safely. He has made clear that his eventual decision will fall short of the total ban on drilling that environmental activists have promoted.

Certain areas of the coast will be put off limits to drilling. During a visit to the Everglades National Park on Earth Day, Bush strongly implied that Florida waters near the Everglades would fall into the protected category, and he subsequently has suggested that several parts of the California coast would be similarly treated.

But aides said that Bush is almost certain to allow drilling in federal waters adjacent to state waters where drilling already takes place--a definition that would cover much of the Southern California coast--although he may seek to delay the impact of the decision in an attempt to keep drilling from becoming an issue in this year’s election for governor.

Knowing that they are not likely to be able to please voters opposed to all drilling, the publicity-conscious White House aides have tried to find a time to announce the drilling decision when it would do the least political damage.

But Bush’s term in office so far has been a bad time for the public image of oil. Shortly after Bush took office, he announced a one-year moratorium on new drilling while a special commission investigated the environmental aspects of the issue. Not long afterward, the Exxon Valdez spill deluged the public with pictures of oil-soaked beaches.

In January, the special task force completed its unpublished report--just in time for the Huntington Beach oil spill, which heightened concern in California over oil.

White House officials quickly put the drilling decision on hold, announcing that the issue needed to be studied further. Aides suggested that a decision would not be announced until after the California primary.

Two weeks ago, Bush announced that a decision would be made in “days, not weeks,” and indicated to members of the California congressional delegation that an announcement would be issued shortly after the end of the summit meeting with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

But, when that time came, the Norwegian tanker Mega Borg caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico.

From time to time, Bush and his aides have argued that tanker accidents should make people more, not less, receptive to offshore drilling. Oil has to get to the country somehow, they note, and every barrel shipped to refineries through a pipeline from an offshore well is one less barrel that has to be transported by tanker.

But, a senior Administration official conceded, however logical that proposition may be, “it’s a hard case to make.” The public, in general, does not make a clear distinction between oil in a pipeline and oil in a tanker, and polls show that opposition to offshore drilling rises with each oil spill.

“On the record, we’d deny any connection” between the delay in the decision and the repeated oil spills of the last year, one White House aide said, insisting on anonymity, “but, off the record, no one could deny it and retain any credibility.”