This article aims to discuss the notion of environmental damage under the CLC 1992 and FUND 1992 as stated in the new Guidelines for Presenting Claims for Environmental Damage prepared by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. That approach is contrasted with the solution adopted in the United States of America under the OPA. Particular attention is given to the problems of compensation for lost services of the environment, as well as providing alternative environment as a restoration measure. The judgments of French and Spanish courts in the Erika and Prestige cases are discussed, raising questions as to suitability of the CLC 1992/FUND 1992 system.
Investigations were carried out to evaluate the performance of a low heat rejection (LHR) diesel engine consisting of different versions, such as ceramic coated cylinder head engine-LHR-1-Air gap insulated piston and air gap insulated liner-LHR-2- and Ceramic coated cylinder head, air gap insulated piston and air gap insulated liner -LHR-3 with degrees of insulation with normal temperature condition of linseed oil with varied injection pressure. Performance parameters were determined at various magnitudes of brake mean effective pressure. Pollution levels of smoke and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) were recorded at the peak load operation of the engine. Combustion characteristics of the engine were measured with TDC (top dead centre) encoder, pressure transducer, console and special pressure-crank angle software package. Conventional engine (CE) showed deteriorated performance, while LHR engine showed improved performance at recommended injection timing of 27 degrees bTDC and recommend injection pressure of 190 bar with vegetable oil operation, when compared with CE with pure diesel operation. Peak brake thermal efficiency increased by 14%, smoke levels decreased by 10% and NOx levels increased by 30% with LHR engine at an injection pressure of 270 bar when compared with pure diesel operation on CE at manufacturer's recommended injection timing.