From the Washington Post:
The British government has taken the unusual step of filing a brief in a Texas federal court in support of BP in its quest to get the Environmental Protection Agency to lift a ban on the British oil firm’s ability to bid for federal contracts, including leases on new offshore drilling prospects in the Gulf of Mexico.
“It is the view of Her Majesty’s Government that EPA’s disqualification and suspension of multiple BP entities may have been excessive,” the government said in its amicus brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Given BP’s efforts to settle oil spill claims, the British government said that the EPA’s prohibition, “if upheld, could undermine the corporate culture of responsibility all responsible governments have sought to foster.”
The brief, filed late Monday night, is an open sign of tension that has been quietly escalating between the U.S. and British governments over the punishment for the huge oil spill triggered by a blowout on BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people died in the fire that broke out on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010....Three and a half years after the spill, and after tens of billions of dollars in payments by BP, the British oil giant is still fighting legal battles over Clean Water Act fines and settlements with individuals and businesses in the gulf region.Unlike the financial settlements over the spill, the EPA’s suspension of BP from federal contracting impairs the ability of the company to invest and expand in the United States.BP is one of the largest foreign investors in the United States, and in 2012 was the top oil and gas producer and deep-water lease holder in the Gulf of Mexico. It says it has invested $55 billion in the United States in the past five years and plans to invest “at least” $4 billion a year in Gulf of Mexico exploration in the next decade. It now has nine rigs operating in the gulf.
So here's a situation where the UK is espousing BP's claim on a matter related to foreign investment. If the TTIP comes into effect with the usual investor-state provisions, BP could espouse its own claim directly. (The arguments quoted certainly sound like FET-type claims). Would that relieve any U.S./UK tensions on the matter? Would it lead to a different kind of tension, as BP would be challenging U.S. environmental regulation before an international tribunal?
