Dengl 28 Obama as Shylock?

Obama As Shylock?
The USA - in the form of the President or Congress or some other institution - is seeking to exact a substantial payment out of BP as compensation for damage inflicted on US animals/beaches/people. This arises from a mishap (we shouldnt misuse the word 'accident') in non territorial waters over which I dont see that the US has any more jurisdiction than does Cuba ...) from an installation which, one is given to believe, was accepted in place by a US regulatory authority (Minerals and Mining something or other...). One can see how cross they are, and one can accept that they do want compensation. BP has ceded that it WILL pay some huge amount.

In doing this, it is said that there will be substantial effects on UK - and indeed on US share values and prosperity. It might be useful, then, to consider how to mitigate the HARM which will be passed along or spread, while alleviating the damage and suffering imposed on US individuals and society.

It also raises the matter of whether reparations in this case will be the catalyst for reparations in other similar cases which may have passed by without any such recognition or restitution, thus far. To my non-professional mind there are the cases of:

a US ship spilling oil on Breton and Norman beaches some years ago
EXXON's Valdez spilling oil on Canadian shores as well as Alaskan ones
Union Carbide's killing of Indian citizens in Bhopal, and of subsequent attributable physiological birth defects
The US military's detritus of explosives and chemicals which, over the years and after the cessation of wars which we may agree were politically justified, have maimed very many people in Asia

Somewhat more subtly, the President's advocacy may be shown to have accomplished two goals - one of earning restitution for victims of the Caribbean oil spill - and that is good; but the other (and perhaps NOT unavoidable) consequence is to depress BP share values with loss to those whose pensions are paid partly out of the dividends therefrom. In this latter function might there be a CLASS ACTION against the President for his ill judged advocacy - in bundling the two consequences together? (Hence the allusion to Shylock, above ...who wanted his pound of flesh, imagining it could be delivered without loss of blood and injury to its human source...) ...
Britain might also consider an action against the President for repeatedly referring to the company by a false name ("British" Petroleum) ((I agree, it was a surprise to me, too, before I learned about "Beyond"* ...but Obama should have known better ...)) thus engendering commercial and trading difficulties for other British concerns..
Of course, we might prefer NOT to explore or take such actions, but this might best occur in a less heated context.

How does one SAY such things - to any useful effect?

* I would have advised BP to employ Beyonce in some publicity, to help sidestep perception of the "British" referent, towards the "Beyond" concept ...
above all, I would have advised BP to anticipate and minimise its risks to a much more convincing extent ...
I would have advised BP, very soon after the explosion, to employ visibly American contractors to try and remedy the situation