INSTANT VIEW: Bush to lift ban on exploring for oil in OCS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush plans to lift a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and make a statement on energy needs at 1:30 p.m. EDT, the White House said on Monday.

Following are comments from analysts and government officials about the decision.

- - - - -

JIM RITTERBUSCH, PRESIDENT, RITTERBUSCH & ASSOCIATES,

GALENA, ILLINOIS:

"It's a long-term deal, it's not going to have any impact on today's market, per se.

"In the short term, it's no solution to high gasoline prices. This is oil that we won't see for years, by the time it arrives, we're likely to have too much of it."

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

TOM BENTZ, ANALYST, BNP PARIBAS COMMODITY FUTURES INC. NEW

YORK:

"There is so much pressure on all politicians to do something about high energy prices. This is something that might help somewhere down the road. But even if we lift the ban, we are not talking about oil coming to market in the next 10 years. It's going to be a long time. There shouldn't be any impact in the short-term.

BRENT BLACKWELDER, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH.

"President Bush and John McCain should be trying to end America's addiction to oil, but instead they're pushing this gimmick that won't do anything to lower the cost of gas. It's time to stop playing politics and start finding solutions.

If John McCain and George W. Bush were serious about addressing this crisis, they would work to create alternatives to driving and make cars and trucks more efficient -- not push a land grab for the oil companies."

TIM EVANS, ENERGY ANALYST, CITI FUTURES PERSPECTIVE, NEW

YORK

"Where we are opening up more areas to exploration and potential production is not necessarily going to be the lowest-cost source of oil. Any international oil company .... would still have to evaluate whether the costs of production are going to be lower somewhere else. So we still have to be competitive on a cost basis with sources of oil from the former Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf, offshore Angola.

Just because oil companies have access does not make investment and development of these reserves automatic. We've seen that with a lot of the oil leases that companies hold in the U.S. and have not developed to date.

There is still quite a process involved. Normally there is an auction on exploration rights. That's going to be a competitive bidding process. It will be months before that process is ready to go."

ATHAN MANUEL, DIRECTOR OF LANDS PROTECTION, SIERRA CLUB

"We think this is just a terrible decision. We're not going to drill our way out of this mess. We could drill everywhere in the United States and not reduce our dependence on oil or reduce the price of gas at the pump. The solutions to this problem are not off our coasts. The U.S. does not contain enough oil to influence the world market."

TONY KREINDLER, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

"The President's announcement today will do little to change the price of gas at the pump. Separate federal law still prevents offshore drilling, and Congress must make that decision.

"With only three percent of the world's oil supply, what we have is only a drop in the bucket. We need a cap on carbon to break the grip of foreign oil on our economy. We have plenty of clean and safe alternatives to foreign oil, we just need a real policy to help them compete in the marketplace. According to MIT data, a cap would reduce oil imports by nearly half a trillion dollars over the next two decades."