UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 20-F

 

(Mark One)
o		REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

x		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from            to           

OR

o		SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of event requiring this shell company report           

Commission file number: 001-36028

 

ARDMORE SHIPPING CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Republic of the Marshall Islands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

 

Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Ground Floor, Pembroke, HM08, Bermuda

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

Mr. Anthony Gurnee
Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Ground Floor, Pembroke, HM08, Bermuda
+ 1 441 292-9332
info@ardmoreshipping.com

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile, and address of Company Contact Person)

 

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act.

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share		New York Stock Exchange

 

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act.

NONE

(Title of class)

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.

NONE

(Title of class)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report.

As of December 31, 2017, there were 32,139,956 shares of common stock outstanding, par value $0.01 per share.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.Yes o No x

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer x		Non-accelerated filer o

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards^† provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. x

† The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow: o Item 17 o Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).Yes o No x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I
Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors			3
Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable			3
Item 3. Key Information			3
Item 4. Information on the Company			25
Item 4.A. Unresolved Staff Comments			52
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects			52
Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees			65
Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions			70
Item 8. Financial Information			73
Item 9. The Offer and Listing			73
Item 10. Additional Information			74
Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks			82
Item 12. Description of Securities Other than Equity Securities			83
PART II
Item 13. Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies			83
Item 14. Material Modifications to the Rights of Shareholders and Use of Proceeds			83
Item 15. Controls and Procedures			83
Item 16. Reserved			84
Item 16.A. Audit Committee Financial Expert			84
Item 16.B. Code of Ethics			84
Item 16.C. Principal Accountant Fees and Services			84
Item 16.D. Exemptions from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees			84
Item 16.E. Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers			84
Item 16.F. Change in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant			85
Item 16.G. Corporate Governance			85
Item 16.H. Mine Safety Disclosures			85
Item 17. Financial Statements			85
Item 18. Financial Statements			85
Item 19. Exhibits			86
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARDMORE SHIPPING CORPORATION			F-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor protections for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to provide prospective information about their business. We desire to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are including this cautionary statement in connection with such safe harbor legislation.

This Annual Report and any other written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements which reflect our current views and assumptions with respect to future events and financial performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, expectations, projections, strategies, beliefs about future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. In some cases, words such as “believe”, “anticipate”, “intends”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “project”, “plan”, “potential”, “will”, “may”, “should”, “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, among others, such matters as:

Many of these statements are based on our assumptions about factors that are beyond our ability to control or predict and are subject to risks and uncertainties that are described more fully under the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. Any of these factors or a combination of these factors could materially affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and the ultimate accuracy of the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause future results to differ include, among others, the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report, because they are statements about events that are not certain to occur as described or at all. All forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of our future performance, and actual results and future developments may vary materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

Except to the extent required by applicable law or regulation, we undertake no obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors

Not applicable.

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

Unless the context otherwise requires, when used in this Annual Report, the terms “Ardmore”, “Ardmore Shipping”, the “Company”, “we”, “our”, and “us” refer to Ardmore Shipping Corporation and its subsidiaries. “Ardmore Shipping Corporation” refers only to Ardmore Shipping Corporation and not its subsidiaries. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to “dollars”, “U.S. dollars” and “$” in this annual report are to the lawful currency of the United States. Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (or U.S. GAAP). We use the term deadweight tons, or dwt, expressed in metric tons, each of which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, in describing the size of tankers.

A. Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated financial data and other operating data. The selected financial data as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The selected consolidated financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 and for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are not included in this Annual Report. The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The data set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”

INCOME STATEMENT DATA		For the years ended
		Dec 31, 2017				Dec 31, 2016				Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013
REVENUE
Revenue		$	195,935,392				164,403,938				157,882,259				67,326,634				35,867,356
OPERATING EXPENSES
Commissions and voyage expenses(1)			72,737,902				37,121,398				30,137,173				7,004,045				2,523,842
Vessel operating expenses			62,890,401				56,399,979				46,416,510				29,447,876				18,215,487
Depreciation			34,271,091				30,091,237				24,157,022				14,854,885				8,388,208
Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure			2,924,031				2,715,109				2,120,974				2,031,100				1,420,814
General and administrative expenses: Corporate			11,979,017				12,055,725				10,418,876				8,178,666				5,699,935
Commercial and chartering(2)			2,619,748				2,021,487				329,746				—				—
Total operating expenses			187,422,190				140,404,935				113,580,301				61,516,572				36,218,286
Profit/(loss) from operations			8,513,202				23,999,003				44,301,958				5,810,062				(350,930	)
Interest expense and finance costs			(21,380,165	)			(17,754,118	)			(12,282,704	)			(4,119,283	)			(3,464,006	)
Interest income			436,195				164,629				15,571				16,444				6,059
Loss on disposal of vessels			—				(2,601,148	)			—				—				—
(Loss)/profit before taxes			(12,430,768	)			3,808,366				32,034,825				1,707,223				(3,808,877	)
Income tax			(59,567	)			(60,434	)			(79,860	)			(46,749	)			(33,726	)
Net (loss)/profit		$	(12,490,335	)			3,747,932				31,954,965				1,660,474				(3,842,603	)
(Loss)/earnings per share, basic and diluted		$	(0.37	)			0.12				1.23				0.07				(0.31	)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted			33,441,879				30,141,891				26,059,122				24,547,661				12,241,599

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BALANCE SHEET DATA		As at
		Dec 31, 2017				Dec 31, 2016				Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013
Cash and cash equivalents		$	39,457,407				55,952,873				40,109,382				59,879,596				56,860,845
Net vessels (including drydock assets)		$	755,935,008				788,693,708				662,359,307				489,833,626				292,054,606
Total assets		$	845,539,989				883,642,723				778,197,608				562,214,991				357,965,633
Net assets		$	380,973,760				404,269,799				347,611,278				327,200,093				232,358,111
Senior debt and capital leases		$	446,917,589				462,343,756				415,014,315				224,902,715				119,239,015
Paid in capital		$	390,541,689				401,347,393				337,211,121				338,064,585				244,883,077
Accumulated (deficit)/surplus		$	(9,567,929	)			2,922,406				10,400,157				(10,864,492	)			(12,524,966	)

CASH FLOW DATA		For the years ended
		Dec 31, 2017				Dec 31, 2016				Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	18,416,228				42,634,500				37,659,686				12,421,127				8,120,173
Net cash used in investing activities		$	(2,282,251	)			(122,311,231	)			(232,849,734	)			(209,741,529	)			(144,637,558	)
Net cash used in/provided by financing activities		$	(32,629,443	)			95,520,221				175,419,834				200,339,153				178,044,107

		For the years ended
FLEET OPERATING DATA		Dec 31, 2017				Dec 31, 2016				Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013
Time Charter Equivalent(3)
MR Tankers “Eco-design”		$	12,902				15,098				19,149				15,913				15,838
MR Tankers “Eco-mod”		$	12,975				14,318				20,223				14,793				13,732
Chemical Tankers “Eco-design”		$	11,949				15,395				17,507				—				—
Chemical Tankers “Eco-mod”		$	—				11,839				13,417				11,404				10,483
Fleet weighted average TCE(4)		$	12,709				14,785				18,309				14,393				12,850
Operating expenditure
Fleet operating expenses per day(5)		$	5,914				6,017				5,976				6,197				6,152
Technical management fees per day(6)		$	384				388				357				359				379
Total fleet operating costs per day		$	6,298				6,405				6,333				6,556				6,531
Expenditures for drydock(7)		$	3,809,906				3,099,805				3,314,568				4,921,479				242,263
On-hire utilization(8)			99.61	%			99.52	%			99.70	%			99.90	%			99.54	%

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D. Risk Factors

Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and to our business in general. Other risks relate principally to the securities market and to ownership of our securities. The occurrence of any of the events described in this section could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating results and ability to pay dividends on our shares, or the trading price of our shares.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDUSTRY

The tanker industry is cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability, which may affect our results of operations.

The tanker industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability. A prolonged downturn in the tanker industry could adversely affect our ability to recharter our vessels or to sell them on the expiration or termination of their charters. In addition, the rates payable in respect of any of our vessels operating in a commercial pool, or any renewal or replacement charters that we enter into, may not be sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably. Fluctuations in charter rates and tanker values result from changes in the supply and demand for tanker capacity and changes in the supply and demand for oil, oil products and chemicals. The factors affecting the supply and demand for tankers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:

Factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of a variety of conditions and factors that can affect the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. Demand for transportation of oil products and chemicals over longer distances was significantly reduced during the last economic downturn. More recently, since 2015 vessel oversupply contributed to continuing low charter rates in the tanker industry. As at March 27, 2018, none of our vessels were on time charter, four of our vessels operated in a spot market oriented commercial pool and 24 vessels operated in the spot market directly. If charter rates decline, we may be unable to achieve a level of charter hire sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably or we may have to operate our vessels at a greater loss.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Any decrease in spot charter rates in the future or continuation of current rates may adversely affect our results of operations.

As at March 27, 2018, four of our vessels were employed in a spot market-oriented commercial pool and 24 of our vessels operated directly in the spot market. The earnings of these vessels are based on the spot market charter rates of the pool or the particular voyage charter. We may seek to employ other vessels directly in the spot market upon re-delivery from the current charterers.

We may employ in the spot charter market additional vessels that we may acquire in the future. Where we plan to employ a vessel in the spot charter market, we generally intend to place such vessel in a commercial pool that pertains to that vessel’s size class or to employ the vessel in the spot market directly. Although spot chartering is common in the tanker industry, the spot charter market may fluctuate significantly based upon tanker and oil product/chemical supply and demand, and there have been periods when spot rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. The successful operation of our vessels in the competitive spot charter market, including within commercial pools, depends upon, among other things, spot-charter rates and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent traveling unladen to pick up cargo. If spot charter rates decline, we may be unable to operate our vessels trading in the spot market profitably or meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness. A decline in spot charter rates may also affect our ability to pay dividends in the future. In addition, as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage that may last up to several weeks, during periods in which spot charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases.

Our ability to renew the charters on our vessels on the expiration or termination of our current charters, or to enter into charters on vessels that we may acquire in the future, the charter rates payable under any replacement charters and vessel values will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the seaborne transportation of oil and chemical products.

Declines in oil prices may adversely affect our growth prospects and results of operations.

Global crude oil prices have previously experienced significant declines and such declines may reoccur. Any meaningful decrease in oil prices may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay dividends, as a result of, among other things:

We have limited current liquidity.

As at December 31, 2017, we had total liquidity of $39.5 million in cash and cash equivalents. Our short-term liquidity requirements include the payment of operating expenses, drydocking expenditures, debt servicing costs, any dividends on our shares of common stock, scheduled repayments of long-term debt, as well as funding our other working capital requirements. Our short-term spot charters, including our participation in spot charter pooling arrangements, contribute to the volatility of our net operating cash flow, and thus our ability to generate sufficient cash flows to meet our short-term liquidity needs. We expect to manage our near-term liquidity needs from our working capital, together with expected cash flows from operations and availability under credit facilities. Our existing long-term debt facilities require, among other things, that we maintain minimum cash and cash equivalents based on the greater of a set amount per number of vessels

TABLE OF CONTENTS

owned and 5% of outstanding debt. The required minimum cash balance as of December 31, 2017, was $22.3 million. Should we not meet this financial covenant or other covenants in our debt facilities, the lenders may declare our obligations under the applicable agreements immediately due and payable, and terminate any further loan commitments, which would significantly affect our short-term liquidity requirements. A default under financing agreements could also result in foreclosure on any of our vessels and other assets securing the related loans.

Declines in charter rates and other market deterioration could cause us to incur impairment charges.

We evaluate the carrying amounts of our vessels to determine if events have occurred that would require an impairment of their carrying amounts. The recoverable amount of vessels is reviewed based on events and changes in circumstances that would indicate that the carrying amount of the assets might not be recovered. The review for potential impairment indicators and projection of future cash flows related to our vessels is complex and requires us to make various estimates, including future charter rates, operating expenses and drydock costs. Historically, each of these items has been volatile. An impairment charge is recognized if the carrying value is in excess of the estimated future undiscounted net operating cash flows. The impairment loss is measured based on the excess of the carrying amount over the fair market value of the asset. An impairment loss could adversely affect our results of operations.

The market values of our vessels may decrease, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit facilities and adversely affect our operating results.

The market values of tankers have historically experienced high volatility. The market prices for tankers declined significantly from historically high levels reached in early 2008 and remain at relatively low levels. The market value of our vessels will fluctuate depending on general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping industry and prevailing charter hire rates, competition from other shipping companies and other modes of transportation, the types, sizes and ages of vessels, applicable governmental regulations and the cost of new buildings. If the market value of our fleet declines, we may not be able to obtain other financing or to incur debt on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. A decrease in vessel values could also cause us to breach certain loan-to-value covenants that are contained in our credit facilities and in future financing agreements that we may enter into from time to time. If we breach such covenants due to decreased vessel values and we are unable to remedy the relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on vessels in our fleet, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

An over-supply of tanker capacity may lead to reductions in charter rates, vessel values, and profitability.

The market supply of tankers is affected by a number of factors, such as demand for energy resources, oil, petroleum and chemical products, as well as the level of global and regional economic growth. If the capacity of new ships delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and lost, tanker capacity will increase. In addition, the global newbuilding orderbook for LR product tankers, which extends to 2021, and the global newbuilding orderbooks for MR product tankers and chemical tankers, which each extend to 2020, equaled approximately 8.5%, 4.5% and 7.5% of their respective fleets as of February 28, 2018. These orderbooks may also increase further in proportion to their respective existing fleets. If the supply of LR product, MR product or chemical tanker capacity increases and if the demand for such respective tanker capacity does not increase correspondingly, charter rates and vessel values could materially decline. A reduction in charter rates and the value of our vessels may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Global financial markets and economic conditions may adversely impact our ability to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms, if at all, and otherwise negatively impact our business.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile. In the last economic downturn, operating businesses in the global economy faced tightening credit, weakening demand for goods and services, deteriorating international liquidity conditions and declining markets. There was a general decline in the willingness of banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly in the shipping industry due to the historically volatile asset values of vessels. Since 2008, lending by financial

TABLE OF CONTENTS

institutions worldwide decreased significantly compared to the period preceding 2008 and lending to the shipping industry remains restrictive. As the shipping industry is highly dependent on the availability of credit to finance and expand operations, it was negatively affected by this decline.

Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the cost of borrowing funds during the last economic downturn increased as many lenders increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance then existing debt at all or on terms similar to those for the then existing debt and, in some cases, ceased to provide funding to borrowers. Due to these factors, additional financing may not be available if needed by us on acceptable terms or at all. If additional financing is not available when needed or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our obligations as they come due or we may be unable to enhance our existing business, complete additional vessel acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.

Changes in fuel, or bunkers, prices may adversely affect our results of operation.

Fuel, or bunkers, is a significant expense for our vessels employed in the spot market and can have a significant impact on pool earnings. For any vessels which may be employed on time charters, the charterer is generally responsible for the cost and supply of fuel; however, such cost may affect the charter rates we may be able to negotiate for our vessels. Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. In addition, fuel price increases may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

Changes in the oil, oil products and chemical markets could result in decreased demand for our vessels and services.

Demand for our vessels and services in transporting oil, oil products and chemicals depends upon world and regional oil markets. Any decrease in shipments of oil, oil products and chemicals in those markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Historically, those markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and events that affect the price, production and transport of oil, oil products and chemicals, including competition from alternative energy sources. Past slowdowns of the U.S. and world economies have resulted in reduced consumption of oil and oil products and decreased demand for our vessels and services, which reduced vessel earnings. Additional slowdowns could have similar effects on our operating results and may limit our ability to expand our fleet.

We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, which can adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. Compliance with such laws and regulations, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. We may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including costs relating to, among other things: air emissions including greenhouse gases; the management of ballast and bilge waters; maintenance and inspection; elimination of tin-based paint; development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. Environmental or other initiatives or incidents (such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) may result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes or changes to existing laws that may affect our operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with such regulatory initiatives, statutes or laws. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

A failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations. Environmental laws often impose strict

TABLE OF CONTENTS

liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances, which could subject us to liability without regard to whether we were negligent or at fault. Under the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil in U.S. waters, including the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. An oil spill could also result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability, remediation costs and natural resource damages under international and U.S. federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages, and could harm our reputation with current or potential charterers of our tankers. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although we have arranged insurance to cover certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we fail to comply with international safety regulations, we may be subject to increased liability, which may adversely affect our insurance coverage and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the International Maritime Organization’s International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”). The ISM Code requires ship owners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes the adoption of safety and environmental protection policies setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. If we fail to comply with the ISM Code or similar regulations, we may be subject to increased liability or our existing insurance coverage may be invalidated or decreased for our affected vessels. Such failure may also result in a denial of access to, or detention of our vessels in, certain ports. The United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) and European Union (“EU) authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and EU ports, which could have an adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

If our vessels suffer damage due to the inherent operational risks of the shipping industry, we may experience unexpected drydocking costs and delays or total loss of our vessels, which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The operation of an ocean-going vessel carries inherent risks. Our vessels and their cargoes will be at risk of being damaged or lost because of events, such as marine disasters, bad weather, climate change, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions, collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, cargo loss, latent defects, acts of God and other circumstances or events. Changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These hazards may result in death or injury to persons, loss of revenues or property, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships, market disruptions, delays or rerouting. In addition, the operation of tankers has unique operational risks associated with the transportation of oil and chemical products. An oil or chemical spill may cause significant environmental damage and the associated costs could exceed the insurance coverage available to us. Compared to other types of vessels, tankers are exposed to a higher risk of damage and loss by fire, whether ignited by a terrorist attack, collision or other causes, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil or chemicals transported in tankers.

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs if our insurance does not cover them in full. The loss of revenues while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, space at drydocking facilities is sometimes limited and not all drydocking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable drydocking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a drydocking facility that is not conveniently located to our vessels’ positions. The loss of earnings while such vessels wait for space or travel or are towed to more distant drydocking facilities may be significant. The total loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and operator. If we are unable to adequately maintain or safeguard our vessels, we may be unable to prevent any such damage, costs or loss which could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We operate our vessels worldwide and, as a result, our vessels are exposed to international risks which may reduce revenue or increase expenses.

The international shipping industry is an inherently risky business involving global operations. Our vessels are at risk of damage or loss because of events such as marine disasters, bad weather, climate change, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions, collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, cargo loss, latent defects, acts of God and other circumstances or events. In addition, changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These sorts of events could interfere with shipping routes and result in market disruptions, which may reduce our revenue and increase our expenses. Our worldwide operations also expose us to the risk that an increase in restrictions on global trade will harm our business. The adoption of trade barriers by governments may reduce global shipping demand and reduce our revenue.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin and destination and transhipment points. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of the cargo or vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or delivery and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against vessel owners. It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. In addition, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business.

Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Aden. Sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Guinea, Venezuela, and in certain areas of the Middle East, and increasingly the Sulu Archipelago and Indonesia in the South China Sea, with tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks. If piracy attacks result in the characterization of regions in which our vessels are deployed as “war risk” zones or Joint War Committee “war and strikes” listed areas by insurers, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including costs which may be incurred to the extent we employ onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention or hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

Political instability, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities can affect the tanker industry, which may adversely affect our business.

We conduct most of our operations outside of the United States, and our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and available cash may be adversely affected by the effects of political instability, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities. Continuing conflicts and recent developments in the Middle East, and the presence of the United States and other armed forces in regions of conflict, may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute to further world economic instability and uncertainty in global financial markets. As a result of these factors, insurers have increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally. Future terrorist attacks could result in increased volatility of the financial markets and negatively impact the United States and global economy. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In the past, political instability has also resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt international shipping, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the West of Africa, South China Sea, South-East Asia and the Gulf of Aden including off the coast of Somalia. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, our reputation and the market for our securities could be adversely affected.

Although no vessels owned or operated by us have called on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and other authorities or countries identified by the U.S. government or other authorities as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Sudan, Syria and North Korea, in the future our vessels may call on ports in these countries from time to time on charterers’ instructions in violation of contractual provisions that prohibit them from doing so. Sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time.

Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact the market for our common shares, our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us.

Our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation or the ability of our charters to meet their obligations to us or result in fines, penalties or sanctions.

The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

We expect that our vessels will call on ports where smugglers may attempt to hide drugs and other contraband on vessels, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent our vessels are found with contraband, whether inside or attached to the hull of our vessel and whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew, we may face governmental or other regulatory claims which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which would have a negative effect on our business and results of operations.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting or attaching a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our business or require us to pay significant amounts to have the arrest lifted, which would have a negative effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another of our vessels.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, which may adversely affect our business and results of operations.

A government could requisition for title or seize our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Also, a government could requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Technological innovation could reduce our charter hire income and the value of our vessels.

The charter hire rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors, including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy and the ability to load and discharge cargo quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter various harbors and ports, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new tankers are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charter hire payments, if any, we receive for our vessels once existing charters expire and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

If labor or other interruptions are not resolved in a timely manner, they could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We, indirectly through our technical managers, employ masters, officers and crews to operate our vessels, exposing us to the risk that industrial actions or other labor unrest may occur. A significant portion of the seafarers that crew our vessels are employed under collective bargaining agreements. We may suffer labor disruptions if relationships deteriorate with the seafarers or the unions that represent them. The collective bargaining agreements may not prevent labor disruptions, particularly when the agreements are being renegotiated. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out as we expect and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

Delays in deliveries of vessels we may purchase or order, our decision to cancel an order for purchase of a vessel or our inability to otherwise complete the acquisitions of additional vessels for our fleet, could harm our operating results.

We expect to purchase and order additional vessels from time to time. The delivery of these vessels could be delayed, not completed or cancelled, which would delay or eliminate our expected receipt of revenues from the employment of these vessels. The seller could fail to deliver these vessels to us as agreed, or we could cancel a purchase contract because the seller has not met its obligations. The delivery of any vessels we may propose to acquire could be delayed because of, among other things, hostilities or political disturbances, non-performance of the purchase agreement with respect to the vessels by the seller, our inability to obtain requisite permits, approvals or financings or damage to or destruction of vessels while being operated by the seller prior to the delivery date.

If the delivery of any vessel is materially delayed or cancelled, especially if we have committed the vessel to a charter under which we become responsible for substantial liquidated damages to the customer as a result of the delay or cancellation, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

The delivery of vessels we may purchase or order could be delayed because of, among other things:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the number of vessels in our fleet and to maintain all our vessels, which will depend on our ability to obtain additional financing.

Our business strategy is based in part upon the expansion of our fleet through the purchase and ordering of additional vessels. We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the size of our fleet. We also have incurred significant capital expenditures in previous years to upgrade secondhand vessels we have acquired to Eco-Mod standards.

In addition, we will incur significant maintenance costs for our current fleet and any additional vessels we acquire. A newbuilding vessel must be drydocked within five years of its delivery from a shipyard and vessels are typically drydocked every 30 to 60 months thereafter depending on the vessel, not including any unexpected repairs. We estimate the cost to drydock a vessel is between $0.75 million and $1.5 million, depending on the size and condition of the vessel and the location of drydocking relative to the location of the vessel.

We may be required to incur additional debt or raise capital through the sale of equity securities to fund the purchasing of vessels or for drydocking costs from time to time. However, we may be unable to access the required financing if conditions change and we may be unsuccessful in obtaining financing for future fleet growth. Use of cash from operations will reduce available cash. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. If we finance our expenditures by incurring additional debt, our financial leverage could increase. If we finance our expenditures by issuing equity securities, our shareholders’ ownership interest in us could be diluted.

We will not be able to take advantage of favorable opportunities in the spot market with respect to vessels employed on medium to long-term time charters, if any.

As at March 27, 2018, none of our vessels were employed under fixed rate time charter agreements. However, in the future we may enter into fixed rate time charter agreements with respect to our vessels. Vessels committed to medium and long-term time charters may not be available for spot charters during periods of increasing charter hire rates, when spot charters might be more profitable.

If we do not identify suitable vessels or shipping companies for acquisition or successfully integrate any acquired vessels or shipping companies, we may not be able to grow or effectively manage our growth.

One of our principal strategies is to continue expanding our operations and our fleet. Our future growth will depend upon a number of factors, some of which may not be within our control. These factors include our ability to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The number of employees that perform services for us and our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate as we implement our plan to expand the size of our fleet and we may not be able to effectively hire more employees or adequately improve those systems. In addition, acquisitions may require additional equity issuances or the incurrence of additional debt (which may require additional amortization payments or impose more restrictive covenants). If we are unable to successfully accommodate any growth, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired vessels and operations into existing infrastructures. The expansion of our fleet may impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff, and the management and staff of our technical managers, and may necessitate that we, and they, increase the number of personnel to support such expansion. We may not be successful in executing our growth plans and we may incur significant expenses and losses in connection with such growth plans.

If we purchase and operate second-hand vessels, we will be exposed to increased operating costs that could adversely affect our earnings and, as our fleet ages, the risks associated with older vessels could adversely affect our ability to obtain profitable charters.

Our current business strategy includes additional growth through the acquisition of new and second-hand vessels. While we typically inspect second-hand vessels prior to purchase, this does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. Generally, we do not receive the benefit of warranties from the builders of the second-hand vessels that we acquire. These factors could increase the ultimate cost of any second-hand vessel acquisitions by us.

In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increase with the age of the vessel. Older vessels are typically less fuel-efficient than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers.

Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which the vessels may engage. As our vessels age, market conditions may not justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

An increase in operating or voyage expenses would decrease our earnings and cash flows.

As at March 27, 2018, none of our vessels were employed under fixed rate time charter agreements. However, in the future we may enter into fixed rate time charter agreements with respect to our vessels. For all vessels operating under time charters, the charterer is primarily responsible for voyage expenses and we are responsible for the vessel operating expenses. We may seek to employ vessels in the spot market following expiration of any such time charters. Under spot chartering arrangements, we will be responsible for all cost associated with operating the vessel, including operating expenses, voyage expenses, bunkers, port and canal costs.

Our vessel operating expenses include the costs of crew, provisions, deck and engine stores, insurance and maintenance, repairs and spares, which depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydocking repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. Increases in any of these expenses would decrease earnings and cash flow.

We may be unsuccessful in competing in the highly competitive international tanker market, which would negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to expand our business.

The operation of tanker vessels and transportation of petroleum and chemical products is extremely competitive, and our industry is capital intensive and highly fragmented. Competition arises primarily from other tanker owners, including major oil companies as well as independent tanker companies, some of which have substantially greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of oil products and chemicals can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the tanker and its operators to the charterers. We may be unable to compete effectively with other tanker owners, including major oil companies and independent tanker companies.

Our market share may decrease in the future. We may not be able to compete profitably as we seek to expand our business into new geographic regions or provide new services. New markets may require different skills, knowledge or strategies than those we use in our current markets, and the competitors in those new markets may have greater financial strength and capital resources than we do.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of customers, and the loss of any such customers could result in a significant loss of revenues and cash flow.

We have derived, and we may continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues and cash flow from a limited number of customers. Vitol Group accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2017; each of Vitol Group, Navig8 Group and Trafigura accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2016; and each of Vitol Group and Navig8 Group accounted for more than 10%, of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2015. No other customer accounted for 10% or more of revenues from continuing operations during any of these periods. The identity of customers which may account for 10% or more of revenues from continuing operations may vary from time to time.

If we lose a key customer or if a customer exercises its right under some charters to terminate the charter, we may be unable to enter into an adequate replacement charter for the applicable vessel or vessels. The loss of any of our significant customers or a reduction in revenues from them could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our charterers may terminate or default on their charters, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flow.

Our charters may terminate earlier than their scheduled expirations. The terms of our charters vary as to which events or occurrences will cause a charter to terminate or give the charterer the option to terminate the charter, but these generally include: a total or constructive loss of the relevant vessel; the governmental requisition for hire of the relevant vessel; the drydocking of the relevant vessel for a certain period of time; and the failure of the relevant vessel to meet specified performance criteria. In addition, the ability of each of our charterers to perform its obligations under a charter will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control. These factors may include general economic conditions, the condition of the tanker industry, the charter rates received for specific types of vessels and various operating expenses. The costs and delays associated with the default by a charterer under a charter of a vessel may be considerable and may adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our available cash.

We cannot predict whether our charterers will, upon the expiration of their charters, re-charter our vessels on favorable terms or at all. If our charterers are unable or decide not to re-charter our vessels, we may not be able to re-charter them on terms similar to our current charters or at all. In addition, the ability and willingness of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a time charter agreement with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the tanker shipping industry and the overall financial condition of the counterparties. Charterers are sensitive to the commodity markets and may be impacted by market forces

TABLE OF CONTENTS

affecting commodities. In depressed market conditions, there have been reports of charterers renegotiating their charters or defaulting on their obligations under charters. Our customers may fail to pay charter hire or attempt to renegotiate charter rates. If a counterparty fails to honor its obligations under agreements with us, it may be difficult for us to secure substitute employment for such vessel, and any new charter arrangements we secure in the spot market or on time charters may be at lower rates. Any failure by our charterers to meet their obligations to us or any renegotiation of our charter agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to obtain additional debt financing may be dependent on the performance of our then-existing charters and the creditworthiness of our charterers.

The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain additional financing at all or at a higher than anticipated cost may materially affect our results of operations and our ability to implement our business strategy.

Servicing our debt, including debt which we may incur in the future, limits funds available for other purposes and if we cannot service our debt, we may lose our vessels.

Borrowing under our existing credit facilities requires us to dedicate a significant part of our cash flow from operations to paying principal and interest on our indebtedness, and we intend to incur additional debt in the future. These payments limit funds available for working capital, capital expenditures and other purposes.

Amounts borrowed under our credit facilities bear interest at variable rates. Currently, we do not have any hedge arrangements in place to reduce our exposure to interest rate variability on variable rate debt. Increases in prevailing rates could increase the amounts that we would have to pay to our lenders, even though the outstanding principal amount remains the same, and our net income and cash flows would decrease. We expect our earnings and cash flow to vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the tanker industry. If we do not generate or reserve enough cash flow from operations to satisfy our debt obligations, we may have to:

However, these alternatives, if necessary, may not be sufficient to allow us to meet our debt obligations. If we are unable to meet our debt obligations or if some other default occurs under our credit facilities, the lenders could elect to declare that debt, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against the vessels or other collateral securing that debt.

We are a holding company and depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations and to make dividend payments.

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries which are all directly and indirectly wholly owned by us, conduct our operations and own all of our operating assets. As a result, our ability to satisfy our financial obligations and to pay dividends to our shareholders depends on the ability of our subsidiaries to generate profits available for distribution to us and, to the extent that they are unable to generate profits, we will be unable to pay our creditors or dividends to our shareholders.

Our ability to grow may be adversely affected by our dividend policy.

Under our dividend policy, we expect to distribute on a quarterly basis as dividends on our shares of common stock an amount equal to 60% of Earnings from Continuing Operations (which represents our earnings per share reported under U.S. GAAP as adjusted for unrealized and realized gains and losses and extraordinary items). Accordingly, our growth, if any, may not be as fast as businesses that do not distribute quarterly

TABLE OF CONTENTS

dividends. To the extent we do not have sufficient cash reserves or are unable to obtain financing from external sources, our dividend policy may significantly impair our ability to meet our financial needs or to grow. Since the quarter ended June 30, 2016, we have not paid cash dividends on our shares of common stock due to losses from continuing operations.

Our credit facilities contain restrictive covenants that limit our business and financing activities, which could negatively affect our growth and results of operations.

Our credit facilities and capital leases impose operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability, or the ability of our subsidiaries to:

Certain of our credit facilities and capital leases require us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy financial covenants. These financial ratios and covenants require us, among other things, to maintain minimum solvency, cash and cash equivalents, corporate net worth, working capital, loan-to-value and interest coverage levels and to avoid exceeding corporate leverage maximum.

As a result of these restrictions, we may need to seek consent from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders’ interests may be different from ours and we may not be able to obtain our lenders’ consent when needed. This may limit our ability to finance our future operations or capital requirements, make acquisitions or pursue business opportunities. Our ability to comply with covenants and restrictions contained in debt instruments may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, we may fail to comply with these covenants. If we breach any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our financing agreements, our obligations may become immediately due and payable, and the lenders’ commitment under our credit facilities, if any, to make further loans may terminate. A default under financing agreements could also result in foreclosure on any of our vessels and other assets securing related loans.

If interest rates increase, it will affect the interest rates under our credit facilities, which could affect our results of operations.

Amounts borrowed under our existing credit facilities bear interest at an annual rate ranging from 2.50% to 3.50% above LIBOR. Interest rates have recently been at historic lows and any normalization in interest rates would lead to an increase in LIBOR, which would affect the amount of interest payable on amounts that we borrow under our credit facilities, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing we conduct in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), or any subsequent testing by our

TABLE OF CONTENTS

independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We could be an “emerging growth company” until December 31, 2018 after which period our auditors will provide such attestation. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We are subject to certain risks with respect to our counterparties on contracts, and failure of such counterparties to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses or otherwise adversely affect our results of operation.

We have entered into spot charter contracts, commercial pool agreements, ship management agreements, credit facilities and capital lease arrangements and other commercial arrangements. Such agreements and arrangements subject us to counterparty risks. The ability of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a contract with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the maritime and offshore industries, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, charter rates received for specific types of vessels, and various expenses. For example, the combination of a reduction of cash flow resulting from declines in world trade, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of availability of debt or equity financing may result in a significant reduction in the ability of our charterers to make charter payments to us. In addition, in depressed market conditions, our charterers and customers may no longer need a vessel that is currently under charter or contract or may be able to obtain a comparable vessel at lower rates. As a result, charterers and customers may seek to renegotiate the terms of their existing charter agreements or avoid their obligations under those contracts. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under agreements with us, we could sustain significant losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Our business depends upon key members of our senior management team who may not necessarily continue to work for us.

Our future success depends to a significant extent upon certain members of our senior management team. Our management team includes members who have substantial experience in the product tanker and chemical shipping industries and have worked with us since inception. Our management team is crucial to the execution of our business strategies and to the growth and development of our business. If the individuals were no longer affiliated with us, we may be unable to recruit other employees with equivalent talent and experience, and our business and financial condition may suffer as a result.

Our insurance may not be adequate to cover our losses that may result from our operations due to the inherent risks of the tanker industry.

We carry insurance to protect us against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business, including marine hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes pollution risks, crew insurance and war risk insurance. However, we may not be adequately insured to cover losses from our operational risks, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, our insurers may refuse to pay particular claims and our insurance may be voidable by the insurers if we take, or fail to take, certain action, such as failing to maintain certification of our vessels with applicable maritime regulatory organizations. Any significant uninsured or under-insured loss or liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we may not be able to obtain

TABLE OF CONTENTS

adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates in the future during adverse insurance market conditions. Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of insurance more difficult for us to obtain due to increased premiums or reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, we may be required to make additional premium payments.

We receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability, from protection and indemnity associations. We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records, the claim records of our managers, as well as the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations. In addition, our protection and indemnity associations may not have enough resources to cover claims made against them. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expense to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations could result in fluctuations in our operating results.

We operate within the international shipping market, which utilizes the U.S. Dollar as its functional currency. As a consequence, the majority of our revenues and the majority of our expenses are in U.S. Dollars.

However, we incur certain general and operating expenses, including vessel operating expenses and general and administrative expenses, in foreign currencies, the most significant of which are the Euro, Singapore Dollar, and British Pound Sterling. This partial mismatch in revenues and expenses could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. Dollar relative to other currencies.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely affect our operating results.

A number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to the concern about climate change. These regulatory measures in various jurisdictions include the adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. In November 2016, the Paris Agreement that deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and targets to limit global temperature increases came into force. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change, including as a result of such international negotiations, could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

The effects upon the oil industry relating to climate change and the resulting regulations may also include declining demand for our services. We do not expect that demand for oil will lessen dramatically over the short-term, but in the long-term climate change may reduce the demand for oil or increased regulation of greenhouse gases may create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil industry could adversely affect the financial and operational aspects of our business, which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

We are incorporated in the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate case law or bankruptcy law and, as a result, shareholders may have fewer rights and protections under Marshall Islands law than under a typical jurisdiction in the United States.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act (the “BCA”). The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the law of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain U.S. jurisdictions. Shareholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our shareholders may have more

TABLE OF CONTENTS

difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, the Marshall Islands does not have a well-developed body of bankruptcy law. As such, in the case of a bankruptcy involving us, there may be a delay of bankruptcy proceedings and the ability of securityholders and creditors to receive recovery after a bankruptcy proceeding, and any such recovery may be less predictable.

It may be difficult to serve process on or enforce a U.S. judgment against us, our officers and our directors.

We are a Marshall Islands corporation and several of our executive offices are located outside of the United States. Most of our directors and officers reside outside the United States. In addition, a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of our directors, officers and experts are located outside of the United States. As a result, you may have difficulty serving legal process upon us or any of these persons within the United States. You may also have difficulty enforcing, both in and outside the United States, judgments you may obtain in U.S. courts against us or any of these persons in any action, including actions based upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal or state securities laws. In addition, there is substantial doubt that the courts of the Marshall Islands or of non-U.S. jurisdictions in which our offices are located would enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws.

Our ability to pay dividends may be limited by the amount of cash we generate from operations following the payment of fees and expenses, by the establishment of any reserves by our board of directors and by additional factors unrelated to our profitability.

Although we generally intend to pay regular quarterly dividends on our common shares, we have not paid dividends on our common stock since August 31, 2016, when we paid a cash dividend of $0.11 per share for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and we may not pay dividends in the future. The amount of dividends we pay will depend in part upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations. We may not, however, have sufficient cash available each quarter to pay dividends, as a result of insufficient levels of profit, restrictions on the payment of dividends contained in our financing arrangements or under applicable law and the decisions of our management and directors. The amount of cash we have available for dividends may fluctuate upon, among other things:

The actual amount of cash we will have available for dividends will also depend on many factors, including:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our net income or loss for the period, which may be affected by non-cash items. We may incur other expenses or liabilities that could reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. Our credit facilities also restrict our ability to declare and pay dividends if an event of default has occurred and is continuing or if the payment of the dividend would result in an event of default. In addition, Marshall Islands law generally prohibits the payment of dividends other than from surplus (retained earnings in excess of consideration received for the sale of stock above the par value of the stock), or while a company is insolvent or if it would be rendered insolvent by the payment of such a dividend, and any dividend may be discontinued at the discretion of our board of directors. As a result of these or other factors, we may pay dividends during periods when we record losses and may not pay dividends during periods when we record income.

Future sales of our common shares could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.

The market price for our common shares could decline as a result of sales by existing shareholders of large numbers of our common shares, or as a result of the perception that such sales may occur. Sales of our common shares by these shareholders also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at the prices that we deem appropriate.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents could make it difficult for our shareholders to replace or remove our current board of directors or could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a merger or acquisition, which could adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

Several provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for our shareholders to change the composition of our board of directors in any one year, preventing them from changing the composition of management. In addition, the same provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that shareholders may consider favorable. These provisions include:

These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

We are an “emerging growth company”, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies” will make our common shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the Securities Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies”. Investors may find our common shares less attractive because we rely on certain of these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

Because of our status as an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act status, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for so long as we are an emerging growth company. As long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide shareholders may be different from information provided by other public

TABLE OF CONTENTS

companies. We may take advantage of these provisions until December 31, 2018 or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company if, among other things, we have more than $1.0 billion in “total annual gross revenues” during the most recently completed fiscal year.

Tax Risks

U.S. tax authorities could treat us as a “passive foreign investment company”, which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”), for U.S. federal income tax purposes if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of “passive income” or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of “passive income”. For purposes of these tests, “passive income” generally includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services generally does not constitute “passive income”. U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to an adverse U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

Based upon our operations as described herein, we do not have material income from time charters, however we may have income from time charters in future taxable years. We do not believe that our income from such time charters should be treated as “passive income” for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. Consequently, the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income should not constitute passive assets. Accordingly, based on our current operations, we do not believe we will be treated as a PFIC with respect to any taxable year.

There is substantial legal authority supporting this position consisting of case law and U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes.

Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept this position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if the nature and extent of our operations change.

If the IRS were successful in asserting that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, U.S. shareholders would face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless a shareholder makes an election available under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (“the Code”), (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed below under Item 10.E (“Taxation of Holders — U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders”)), excess distributions and any gain from the disposition of such shareholder’s common shares would be allocated ratably over the shareholder’s holding period of the common shares and the amounts allocated to the taxable year of the excess distribution or sale or other disposition and to any year before we became a PFIC would be taxed as ordinary income. The amount allocated to each other taxable year would be subject to tax at the highest rate in effect for individuals or corporations, as appropriate, for that taxable year, and an interest charge would be imposed with respect to such tax. See Item 10.E (“Taxation of Holders — U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders”) for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to United States shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

We may have to pay tax on U.S. source shipping income, which would reduce our earnings.

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), 50% of the gross shipping income of a corporation that owns or charters vessels, as we and our subsidiaries do, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be subject to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

a 4% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder or that corporation is entitled to an exemption from such tax under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty.

We intend to take the position that we qualified for this statutory exemption for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes for our 2017 taxable year and we intend to so qualify for future taxable years. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption and thereby cause us to become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income. For example, there is a risk that we could no longer qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for a particular taxable year if “non-qualified” shareholders with a 5% or greater interest in our stock were, in combination with each other, to own 50% or more of the outstanding shares of our stock on more than half the days during the taxable year. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances on our tax-exempt status or that of any of our subsidiaries.

If we or our subsidiaries were not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, we or our subsidiaries would be subject for such year to an effective 4% U.S. federal income tax on the shipping income we or our subsidiaries derive during the year which is attributable to the transport of cargoes to or from the United States. The imposition of this taxation would have a negative effect on our business and would decrease our earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

We may be subject to additional taxes, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

We and our subsidiaries are subject to tax in certain jurisdictions in which we or our subsidiaries are organized, own assets or have operations. In computing our tax obligations in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that, upon review of these positions, the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company

We are Ardmore Shipping Corporation. We provide seaborne transportation of petroleum products and chemicals worldwide to oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, and chemical companies, with our modern, fuel-efficient fleet of mid-size product and chemical tankers. Our current fleet consists of 28 vessels, all of which are in operation.

Ardmore Shipping Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands on May 14, 2013. We commenced business operations through our predecessor company, Ardmore Shipping LLC, on April 15, 2010. On August 6, 2013, we completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock. Prior to our IPO, GA Holdings LLC, who was our sole shareholder, exchanged its 100% interest in Ardmore Shipping LLC for 8,049,500 shares of Ardmore Shipping Corporation, and Ardmore Shipping LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Ardmore Shipping Corporation. In March 2014, we completed a follow-on public offering of 8,050,000 common shares. In November 2015, GA Holdings LLC sold 4,000,000 of its shares of our common stock in an underwritten public offering. In June 2016, we completed a public offering of 7,500,000 common shares, of which GA Holdings LLC purchased 1,277,250 shares. In November 2017, GA Holdings LLC disposed the balance of its remaining 5,787,942 common shares, of which 5,579,978 shares were sold in an underwritten public secondary offering, 85,654 shares were repurchased by us in a private transaction, and 122,310 shares were distributed to certain of its members, including Anthony Gurnee, our chief executive officer and a member of our board of directors. In addition to the 85,654 shares we repurchased from GA Holdings LLC in a private transaction, we also purchased from the underwriter 1,350,000 shares of our common stock that were sold by GA Holdings LLC in the underwritten public secondary offering. The price we paid for all such repurchases was equal to the price per share at which GA Holdings LLC sold shares to the underwriters in the public offering. As of November 30, 2017, GA Holdings LLC no longer owned any shares in Ardmore. As of February 28, 2018, 32,445,415 shares of our common stock were outstanding.

We have 50 wholly owned subsidiaries, the substantial majority of which represent single ship-owning companies for our fleet, and a newly formed 50%-owned joint venture entity, Anglo Ardmore Ship Management Limited (“AASML”), which provides technical management services to the majority of our fleet. A list of our subsidiaries is included as Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report.

We maintain our principal executive and management offices at Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Ground Floor, Pembroke, HM08, Bermuda. Our telephone number at these offices is +1 441 292 9332. Ardmore Shipping (Bermuda) Limited (“ASBL”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Bermuda, carries out our management services and associated functions. Ardmore Shipping Services (Ireland) Limited (“ASSIL”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Ireland, provides our corporate, accounting, fleet administration and operations services. Ardmore Shipping (Asia) Pte. Limited (“ASA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Singapore, performs commercial management and chartering services for us. Ardmore Shipping (Americas) LLC (“ASUS”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Delaware, performs commercial management and chartering services for us.

Vessel Acquisitions

Our current fleet consists of 28 double-hulled product and chemical tankers, all of which are in operation. We acquired 14 of our vessels as second-hand vessels, seven of which we have upgraded to increase efficiency and improve performance. In 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, we paid an aggregate of $209.7 million, $232.5 million, $174.0 million and $1.6 million (as a deposit, the balance of $14.8 million being payable in 2018), respectively, in capital expenditures for vessel acquisitions, vessel equipment, and newbuilding orders.

As of December 31, 2010, our operating fleet consisted of four vessels. During 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 we acquired or took delivery (on a net basis) of two, none, two, six, ten and three vessels respectively. In 2017, we took no vessel deliveries; however we did pay $1.6 million as a deposit for a vessel, the Ardmore Sealancer, that was delivered in January 2018.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We continue to qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We may take advantage of these provisions until December 31, 2018 or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.0 billion in “total annual gross revenues” during our most recently completed fiscal year, if we become a “large accelerated filer” with market capitalization of more than $700 million, or as of any date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt over the three year period to such date. When we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, our auditors will provide the auditor attestations of our internal control over financial reporting; however, for as long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide shareholders may be different from information provided by other public companies. We have irrevocably chosen to “opt out” of the extended transition period relating to the exemption from new or revised financial accounting standards and, as a result, we comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for non-emerging growth companies.

B. Business Overview

We commenced business operations in April 2010 with the goal of building an enduring product and chemical tanker company that emphasizes disciplined capital allocation, service excellence, innovation, and operational efficiency through our focus on high quality, fuel-efficient vessels. We are led by a team of experienced senior managers who have previously held senior management positions with highly regarded public shipping companies and financial institutions.

We are strategically focused on modern, fuel-efficient, mid-size product and chemical tankers. We actively pursue opportunities to exploit the overlap we believe exists between the clean petroleum product (“CPP”) and chemical sectors in order to enhance earnings, and also seek to engage in more complex CPP trades, such as multi-grade and multi-port loading and discharging operations, where our knowledge of chemical operations is beneficial to our CPP customers.

Our fuel-efficient operations are designed to enhance our investment returns and provide value-added service to our customers. We believe we are at the forefront of fuel efficiency and emissions reduction trends and are well positioned to capitalize on these developments with our fleet of Eco-design and Eco-mod vessels. Our acquisition strategy is to continue to build our fleet with Eco-design newbuildings and modern second-hand vessels that can be upgraded to Eco-mod.

We are an integrated shipping company. The majority of our fleet is technically managed by a combination of ASSIL and AASML and we also retain a third-party technical manager for a number of vessels. We have a resolute focus on both high-quality service and efficient operations, and we believe that our corporate overhead and operating expenses are among the lowest of our peers.

Moreover, we are commercially independent, as we have no blanket employment arrangements with third-party or related-party commercial managers. Through our in-house chartering and commercial team, we market our services directly to a broad range of customers, including oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, chemical companies, and pooling service providers. We monitor the tanker markets to understand and best utilize our vessels and may change our chartering strategy to take advantage of changing market conditions.

We have no related-party transactions concerning our vessel operations or vessel sale and purchase activities. Certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries carry out our management and administrative services, with ASBL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

providing our management services and associated functions, ASSIL providing our corporate, accounting, fleet administration and operations services and ASA and ASUS performing our commercial management and chartering services.

We believe that the market for mid-size product and chemical tankers is recovering from cyclical lows, resulting from strong underlying demand growth driven by both cyclical and secular trends, as well as a reduction in the supply overhang due to reduced ordering activity and an extended period of fleet growth at a rate below that of demand growth. We believe that we are well positioned to benefit from the market recovery with a modern, fuel-efficient fleet, access to capital for growth, a diverse and high-quality customer base, an emphasis on service excellence in an increasingly demanding regulatory environment and a relative cost advantage in assets, operations and corporate overhead.

Fleet List

Our current fleet consists of 28 vessels, including 21 Eco-design and seven Eco-mod vessels, all of which are in operation. The average age of our vessels at February 28, 2018, was 5.6 years.

Vessel Name

Type

Dwt Tonnes

IMO

Built

Country

Flag

Specification

Ardmore Seavaliant

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Feb-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seaventure

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Jun-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seavantage

Product/Chemical

49,997

2/3

Jan-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seavanguard

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Feb-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Sealion

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

May-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seafox

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Jun-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seawolf

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Aug-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seahawk

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Nov-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Endeavour

Product/Chemical

49,997

2/3

Jul-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Enterprise

Product/Chemical

49,453

2/3

Sep-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Endurance

Product/Chemical

49,466

2/3

Dec-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Encounter

Product/Chemical

49,478

2/3

Jan-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Explorer

Product/Chemical

49,494

2/3

Jan-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Exporter

Product/Chemical

49,466

2/3

Feb-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Engineer

Product/Chemical

49,420

2/3

Mar-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seafarer

Product/Chemical

45,744

3

Aug-04

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seatrader

Product

47,141

—

Dec-02

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seamaster

Product/Chemical

45,840

3

Sep-04

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seamariner

Product/Chemical

45,726

3

Oct-06

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Sealancer

Product

47,451

—

Jun-08

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Sealeader

Product

47,463

—

Aug-08

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Sealifter

Product

47,472

—

Jun-08

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Dauntless

Product/Chemical

37,764

2

Feb-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Defender

Product/Chemical

37,791

2

Feb-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Cherokee

Product/Chemical

25,215

2

Jan-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Cheyenne

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Mar-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Chinook

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Jul-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Chippewa

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Nov-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Total

28

1,250,019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Business Strategy

Our objective is to solidify our position as a market leader in modern, fuel-efficient, mid-size product and chemical tankers by engaging in well-timed growth and utilizing our operational expertise and quality-focused approach to provide value-added services to our customers. The key elements of our business strategy include:

Corporate Officers, Staff and Seafarers

Biographical information with respect to each of our directors and executive officers is set forth in Item 6 (“Directors, Senior Management and Employees”) of this Annual Report.

As at December 31, 2017, we employed 46 permanent staff onshore. Through AASML, our 50%-owned joint venture ship manager, and Thome Ship Management, our third party technical manager, we currently employ approximately 1,060 seafarers, including 569 officers and cadets and 491 crew.

Commercial management is provided directly by our in-house chartering and commercial team, and by third-party commercial pool managers, in the case of vessels participating in pooling arrangements. Commercial pools can provide many benefits for vessels operating in the spot market, including the ability to generate higher returns due to the economies of scale derived by operating a larger fleet.

Customers

Our customers include national, regional, and international companies and our fleet is employed directly on the tanker spot market through our in-house chartering and commercial team or via third party commercial pool employment. We may in the future seek to deploy our vessels on time charter arrangements. We believe that developing strong relationships with the end users of our services allows us to better satisfy their needs with appropriate and capable vessels.

A prospective charterer’s financial condition, creditworthiness, and reliability track record are important factors in negotiating our vessels’ employment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as our reputation. Ownership of tanker vessels is highly fragmented and is divided among publicly listed companies, state-controlled owners and private ship-owners.

The International Product and Chemical Tanker Industry

The information and data contained in this section relating to the international product and chemical tanker shipping industries have been provided by Drewry Maritime Research (“Drewry”), and is taken from Drewry’s database and other sources. Drewry has advised that: (i) some information in their database is derived from estimates or subjective judgments; (ii) the information in the databases of other maritime data collection agencies may differ from the information in their database. We believe that all third-party data provided in this section, “The International Product and Chemical Tanker Industry,” is reliable.

The world tanker fleet is generally divided into four main categories of vessels based on the main type of cargo carried. These categories are crude oil, refined petroleum products (both clean and dirty products), hereinafter referred to as products, chemicals, (including vegetable oils and fats) and specialist products such as bitumen. There is some overlap between the main tanker types and the cargoes carried which is explained in the table below.

Principal Tanker Types and Main Cargoes Carried

Vessel Type		Ship Size – Dwt		Tank Type		IMO Status		Principal Cargo		Other Cargoes
UL/VLCC		200,000+		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil
Suezmax		120,000 – 199,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil
Aframax		80,000 – 119,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil		Refined Products – Dirty
Panamax		60,000 – 79,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil		Refined Products – Dirty
Long Range 3 (LR3)		120,000 – 199,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products		Crude; Chemicals/Veg Oils
Long Range 2 (LR2)		80,000 – 119,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products		Crude; Chemicals/Veg Oils
Long Range 1 (LR1)		60,000 – 79,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products		Crude; Chemicals/Veg Oils
Medium Range (MR)		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		IMO 2		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		IMO 3		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products
		25,000 – 59,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Refined Products
Short Range (SR)		10,000 – 24,999		Coated		Non-IMO		Refined Products
		10,000 – 24,999		Coated		IMO 2		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
Stainless Steel Tankers		10,000+		Stainless		IMO 2		Chemicals/Veg Oils		Refined Products
Specialist Tankers		10,000+		Uncoated/ Coated		Non IMO		Various e.g Bitumen

Source: Drewry

In the product and chemical sectors there are a number of vessels that possess the ability to carry both products and some chemicals. These vessels, therefore, represent a “swing” element in supply in both of these markets. However, in practice many vessels will tend to trade in either refined products or chemicals/vegetable oils and fats.

In 2017, a total of 3.40 billion tons of crude oil, oil products and chemicals were moved by sea. This was an increase of 3.6% from 2016 (3.29 billion tons) and is the result of record crude oil imports by Asian economies and rising refining activity leading to further growth in seaborne product trades. In 2017, China became the largest crude oil importer surpassing the United States. Over the period from 2007 to 2017, seaborne trade in oil products grew at an annual average rate of 3.6% and in 2017 totaled 1.03 billion tons. The growth in seaborne products trade between 2016 and 2017 was 2.6%, based on provisional figures.

Between 2012 and 2017 seaborne trade grew by an annual rate of 1.3% for crude oil, 3.8% for oil products, and 3.9% for chemicals. Over the period from 2012 to 2017, seaborne trade in refined products and chemicals

TABLE OF CONTENTS

were two of the fastest growing sectors of international tanker shipping. Changes in world seaborne tanker trade volumes in the period 2007 to 2017 are shown in the table below.

World Seaborne Tanker Trade Volumes

Year		Crude Oil								Oil Products								Chemicals								Total								Global GDP (IMF)
		Mill T				% y-o-y				Mill T				% y-o-y				Mill T				% y-o-y				Mill T				% y-o-y				% y-o-y
2007			2,008				0.6	%			723				6.8	%			170				2.5	%			2,902				2.2	%			5.6	%
2008			2,014				0.3	%			765				5.8	%			169				-0.6	%			2,947				1.6	%			3.0	%
2009			1,928				-4.2	%			777				1.6	%			178				5.4	%			2,883				-2.2	%			-0.1	%
2010			1,997				3.6	%			810				4.3	%			189				6.2	%			2,996				3.9	%			5.4	%
2011			1,941				-2.8	%			860				6.3	%			194				2.6	%			2,996				0.0	%			4.3	%
2012			1,988				2.4	%			859				-0.2	%			202				4.2	%			3,049				1.8	%			3.5	%
2013			1,918				-3.6	%			904				5.3	%			211				4.1	%			3,033				-0.6	%			3.5	%
2014			1,893				-1.3	%			914				1.1	%			215				2.1	%			3,022				-0.3	%			3.6	%
2015			1,954				3.2	%			958				4.8	%			231				7.5	%			3,144				4.0	%			3.4	%
2016			2,042				4.5	%			1,008				5.2	%			235				1.6	%			3,285				4.5	%			3.2	%
2017*			2,125				4.1	%			1,034				2.6	%			245				4.1	%			3,404				3.6	%			3.6	%
CAGR (2012 – 2017)			1.3	%							3.8	%							3.9	%							2.2	%
CAGR (2007 – 2017)			0.6	%							3.6	%							3.7	%							1.6	%

Source: Drewry

The Product Tanker Industry

While crude oil tankers transport crude oil from points of production to points of consumption, typically oil refineries in consuming countries, product tankers can carry both refined and unrefined petroleum products, including some crude oil, as well as fuel oil and vacuum gas oil (often referred to as ‘dirty products’) and gas oil, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and naphtha (often referred to as ‘clean products’). Tankers with no International Maritime Organisation (IMO) certification but with coated cargo tanks are designed to carry products, while tankers with IMO certification (normally IMO 2 or IMO 3) and coated cargo tanks are capable to carry both products and chemicals/vegetable oils and fats. Given the above, a tanker with IMO 2 certification and with an average tank size in excess of 3,000 cubic meters is normally classified as a product tanker, while a tanker with IMO 2 certification and an average tank size of less than 3,000 cubic meters is normally categorized as a chemical tanker.

In essence, products can be carried in coated non IMO tankers and IMO rated coated tankers. By this definition the product capable tanker fleet comprises nearly 45% of the total tanker fleet (above 10,000 dwt) in numbers terms, and therefore plays a key part in global tanker trade.

Demand for product tankers is determined by world oil demand and trade, which is influenced by various factors including economic activity, geographic changes in oil production, consumption and refinery capacity, oil prices, the availability of transport alternatives (such as pipelines) and inventory policies of nations and oil trading companies. Tanker demand is a product of (i) the volume of cargo transported in tankers, multiplied by (ii) the distance that cargo is transported.

Oil demand growth and changes in the location of oil supply have altered the structure of tanker markets in recent years. Between 2003 and 2008, more than half of new crude oil production was located in the Middle East and Africa, with these two regions still producing approximately one third of global supply in 2017. However, in recent years U.S. and Canadian crude oil production have significantly increased as a result of shale oil deposit development.

New technologies such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have triggered a shale oil revolution in the U.S., and in 2013, for the first time in the previous two decades, the U.S. produced more oil than it imported. This has reduced U.S. seaborne crude import demand, while resulting in greater oil product exports from the U.S. Gulf, giving refiners access to competitively priced feedstock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As a result of rising surplus in oil production, in 2015 the U.S. Congress lifted a 40-year old ban on crude oil exports that was put in place after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, thereby allowing U.S. oil producers access to international markets. The first shipments of the U.S. crude were sent to Europe immediately after the lifting of ban, and since then other destinations have followed. The U.S. exported 0.5 mbpd of crude oil in 2015 and 2016. However, 2017 marked a very important development for the U.S. crude producers as the country exported crude to every major importer including China, India, South Korea and several European countries. In October 2017, U.S. crude export surpassed 2 mbpd and on average the country’s crude exports more than doubled in 2017 to 1.1 mbpd.

U.S. Crude Oil Production and U.S. Product Exports

Source: Drewry

Much of the increase in U.S. exports has gone to satisfying growing South American and African demand for oil products while other U.S. exports have been moving transatlantic into Europe, where local refinery shutdowns have supported the rise in import of products.

In terms of tonne-mile demand, a notable development in the patterns of world refining over the last five years has been the shift towards crude oil producing regions developing their own refinery capacity, while at the same time, poor refinery margins have led to closures of refineries in the developed world, most notably in Europe and on the U.S. east coast. In this context it is already apparent that the closures of refining capacity in the developed world are prompting longer haul imports to cater for product demand, for instance on routes such as the West Coast India to the U.S. eastern seaboard and Europe. Refinery closures close to consuming regions elsewhere in the world will also help to support product import demand. For example, in Australia, trade from Singapore has become increasingly important to compensate for the conversion of local producing refineries into storage depots. This is part of a general increase in intra-Asian trade which is already boosting product tanker demand.

The shift in the location of global oil production is also being accompanied by a shift in the location of global refinery capacity and throughput. In short, capacity and throughput are moving from the developed to the developing world. Between 2007 and 2017 total OECD refining throughput declined by 1.7%, largely as a result of cutbacks in OECD Europe and OECD Asia Oceania. Conversely, throughput in the OECD Americas in the same period moved up by 4.1% to 19.3 million bpd. In 2017, refining throughput of OECD countries stood at 38.5 million bpd and accounted for 47.8% of global refinery throughput.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Refinery Throughput⁽¹⁾ 2007 – 2017

(‘000 Barrels Per Day)

		2007				2008				2009				2010				2011				2012				2013				2014				2015				2016				2017
OECD Americas			18,524				17,973				17,480				17,931				17,898				18,190				18,492				18,934				18,850				18,960				19,290
OECD Europe			13,462				13,364				12,377				12,265				11,935				11,942				11,304				11,232				11,900				11,920				12,210
OECD Asia Oceania			7,136				7,049				6,549				6,697				6,586				6,609				6,720				6,652				6,700				6,890				6,960
FSU			6,017				6,188				6,170				6,401				6,592				6,683				6,831				7,069				6,850				6,880				6,780
Non-OECD Europe			767				699				641				658				627				587				559				557				500				500				520
China			7,085				7,299				7,762				8,630				9,041				9,749				10,427				10,864				10,400				10,790				11,200
Other Asia			7,762				7,695				8,224				8,598				8,637				8,792				8,588				8,541				10,000				10,380				10,420
Latin America			5,266				5,181				4,729				4,678				4,873				4,470				4,589				4,545				4,550				4,200				3,850
Middle East			6,213				6,211				6,069				6,164				6,324				6,257				6,202				6,501				6,450				6,810				7,160
Africa			2,372				2,457				2,292				2,451				2,168				2,202				2,182				2,255				2,250				2,090				2,050
Total			74,604				74,116				72,293				74,471				74,682				75,482				75,894				77,149				78,450				79,420				80,440

Source: Drewry

Asia (excluding China) and the Middle East added over 0.74 million bpd of export-oriented refinery capacity in 2016. As a result of these developments countries such as India and Saudi Arabia have consolidated their positions as major exporters of products. It is also the case that export-oriented refineries in India and the Middle East, coupled with the closure of refining capacity in the developed world, have prompted longer-haul shipments to cater for product demand.

New refining capacity of 1.0 million bpd came online in 2017 and further new refinery capacity is currently scheduled for both the Middle East and Asia in the period 2018 to 2022. In the period 2018 to 2022 anticipated additions to refinery capacity on a regional basis (illustrated in the chart below) amount to 5.8 million bpd, or 6.0% of existing refinery capacity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planned Additions to Global Refining Capacity⁽¹⁾

(Million Barrels Per Day)

Source: Drewry

In developed economies, such as Europe, refinery capacity is on the decline and this trend is likely to continue as refinery development plans are concentrated in areas such as Asia and the Middle East or close to oil producing centers and where the new capacity coming on stream is export orientated. These new refineries are more competitive, as they can process sour crude oil and are technically more advanced as well as more environmentally friendly compared with existing European refineries. It is also the case that few new refineries or expansions are planned for Europe. By contrast Chinese and Indian refinery capacity, for example, has grown at faster rates than any other global region in the last decade, due to strong domestic oil consumption, and the construction of export-orientated refineries. In the period 2007 to 2017, Chinese refining capacity increased by 80.7% and for India, the growth was 66.4%.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

China & India — Refining Capacity⁽¹⁾

(‘000 Barrels Per Day)

Source: Drewry

As a result of the growth in trade and the changes in the location of refinery capacity, demand for product tankers expressed in terms of tonne-miles grew by a CAGR of 4.3% between 2007 and 2017. Generally, growth in products trade and product tanker demand is more consistent and less volatile than crude oil trade.

Seaborne Product Trade and Ton Mile Demand

Source: Drewry

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Product Tanker Supply

The global product tanker fleet is classified as any non stainless steel/specialized tanker between 10,000 dwt and 60,000 dwt, as well as coated and other “product-capable” vessels over 60,000 dwt. As of February 25, 2018, the world product tanker capable fleet consisted of 3,791 vessels with a combined capacity of 175.1 million dwt. Within the total tanker fleet, MR vessels account for 32.5% of total ship numbers and, in the global product tanker fleet, they account for 55.7% of total ship numbers. MR vessels are considered the “workhorses” of the fleet.

As of February 25, 2018, the MR product tanker orderbook was 87 vessels totaling 4.3 million dwt. The MR orderbook as a percentage of the existing MR fleet in terms of dwt was 4.5%, compared with 4.7% in February 2017 and close to 50% at the last peak in 2008. Based on scheduled deliveries, 2.2 million dwt of MR product tankers are due for delivery in the remainder of 2018 and a further 1.7 million dwt in 2019. Approximately 50% of the vessels on order in the MR category are scheduled to be delivered in 2018 and this would increase the MR fleet by 2.4%, assuming no vessel scrapping. In any year ships will be scrapped due to age and therefore in 2018 the growth in the MR fleet is likely to be less than 2.4%. Furthermore, in recent years the orderbook has been affected by the non-delivery of vessels or “slippage” as it is sometimes referred to. Current estimates suggest that in 2017, approximately 20% of vessels across the entire tanker orderbook scheduled for delivery in 2017 did not deliver during the year. Some of the non-delivery was a result of delays, either through mutual agreement or through shipyard problems, while some were due to vessel cancellations. Slippage is likely to remain an issue going forward and will continue to temper fleet growth.

The other factor that will affect future supply is vessel scrapping. The volume of scrapping is a function primarily of the age profile of the fleet, scrap prices in relation to current and prospective charter market conditions, as well as operating, repair and survey costs. In 2015, a total of 56 tankers of a combined capacity of 2.5 million dwt were sold for scrap, of which 22 tankers of approximately 0.7 million dwt were in the MR size range. In comparison, only 46 tankers with a combined capacity of 2.1 million dwt of tonnage were scrapped in 2016, of which 28 tankers with a total capacity of 1.1 million dwt were in the MR size range. Provisional data suggests that in 2017 a further 24 MR tankers of 1 million dwt were removed from the operating fleet. Demolition has slowed in the product tanker sector due to the fact that the global fleet is relatively young.

World Tanker Fleet & Orderbook: February 25, 2018

Vessel Type/Class		Fleet								Size dwt				Orderbook								% Fleet Dwt				Orderbook Delivery Schedule (M Dwt)
		Number				M Dwt								Number				M Dwt								2018				2019				2020				2021+
Crude Tankers
UL/VLCC			736				226.4				200,000+				90				28.1				12.4	%			13.7				11.2				2.5				0.6
Suezmax			549				85.7				120,000 – 199,999				35				5.3				6.2	%			3.2				1.1				1.0				0.2
Aframax (Uncoated)			653				71.0				80,000 – 119,999				74				8.4				11.8	%			4.7				2.3				0.8				0.6
Panamax (Uncoated)			81				5.6				60,000 – 79,999				5				0.3				5.4	%			0.0				0.0				0.3				0.0
Crude Tankers			2,019				388.7								204				42.1				10.8	%			21.6				14.6				4.6				1.4
Long Range 3 (LR3)			18				2.8				120,000 – 199,999				1				0.2				5.5	%			0.2				0.0				0.0				0.0
Long Range 2 (LR2)			345				37.7				80,000 – 119,999				35				4.0				10.6	%			1.9				0.7				0.3				1.0
Long Range 1 (LR1)			363				26.7				60,000 – 79,999				21				1.6				6.0	%			1.0				0.4				0.2				0.0
LR Product Tankers			726				67.2								57				5.7				8.5	%			3.1				1.1				0.5				1.0
Medium Range (MR)
Coated IMO 2			858				38.6				25,000 – 59,999				80				4.0				10.4	%			1.9				1.7				0.4				0.0
Coated IMO 3 & Non IMO Coated/Uncoated			1,276				56.4				25,000 – 59,999				7				0.3				0.5	%			0.3				0.0				0.2				0.0
Total MR			2,134				95.0								87				4.3				4.5	%			2.2				1.7				0.6				0.0
Short Range			955				14.1				10,000 – 24,999				65				1.1				7.4	%			0.5				0.3				0.2				0.0
Stainless Steel Tankers			696				15.3				10,000+				62				1.6				10.3	%			0.8				0.5				0.2				0.0
Total All Tankers			6,530				580.4								475				54.7				9.4	%			28.2				18.1				6.2				2.4

Source: Drewry

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Two other important factors are likely to affect product tanker supply in the future. The first is the requirement to retrofit ballast water management systems (“BWMS”) to existing vessels. In February 2004, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (“BWM Convention”). The BWM Convention contains an environmentally protective numeric standard for the treatment of ship’s ballast water before it is discharged. This standard, detailed in Regulation “D-2” of the BWM Convention, sets out the numbers of organisms allowed in specific volumes of treated discharge water. The IMO “D-2” standard is also the standard that has been adopted by the USCG’s ballast water regulations and the U.S. EPA’s Vessel General Permit. The BWM Convention also contains an implementation schedule for the installation of IMO member state type approved treatment systems in existing ships and in new vessels, requirements for the development of vessel ballast water management plans, requirements for the safe removal of sediments from ballast tanks, and guidelines for the testing and type approval of ballast water treatment technologies. However, in July 2017 the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee (“MEPC”) decided to extend the time for compliance with the BWM Convention. As a result, only vessels built after its entry into force on September 8, 2017 will immediately be subject to the new ballast water performance standard. Other vessels will be exempt until their first International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey, which will be conducted after September 8, 2019. Such surveys typically take place every five years, thus some vessels will have until 2024 to comply. For an MR2 tanker, the retrofit cost could be as much as $1.0 million per vessel including labor. Expenditure of this kind will be another factor impacting on the decision to scrap older vessels.

The second factor that is likely to impact on future vessel supply is the drive to introduce low sulfur fuels. For many years heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) has been the main fuel of the shipping industry. The IMO, the governing body of international shipping, has made a decisive effort to diversify the industry away from HFO into cleaner fuels. Effective in 2015, ships operating within the Emission Control Areas (“ECAs”) covering the Economic Exclusive Zone of North America, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the English Channel are required to use marine gas oil with allowable sulfur content up to 1,000 parts per million (“ppm”). From 2020, ships sailing outside ECAs will switch to marine diesel oil with permitted sulfur content up to 5,000 ppm. This will create openings for a variety of new fuels, or capital expenditure for “scrubbers” to be retrofitted on existing ships and as such it may hasten the demise of older ships.

The Product Tanker Freight Market

Between 2003 and early 2008, the differential between demand and supply for tankers remained narrow and rates were generally very firm. Following the global financial crisis in 2009, tanker demand declined, coinciding with substantial tonnage entering the fleet, driving earnings down until the market started to recover in 2014. Product tanker fleet growth in 2015 was approximately 5.0% in capacity terms and with demand growing by approximately 5.2%, improved utilization rates in the sector have led to much stronger freight rates. The specific factors which have led to improved market conditions include:

For example, the average time charter equivalent (“TCE”) of the spot rate for a Medium Range (MR) product tanker in 2015 was $18,375/day, compared with an average of $9,833/day in 2014. On a one-year time charter rate basis, average MR rates rose from $14,438/day in 2014 to $17,271/day in 2015.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

However, newbuild deliveries in 2016 and 2017 had a negative impact on vessel earnings. In 2017, the average one-year time charter rate for MR tankers was $13,188/day, while on a TCE basis the average rate during 2017 was $8,258/day. The trend in MR spot and time charter rates in the period from January 2007 to January 2018 is shown in the chart below.

MR Tanker Freight Rates

(US$ Per Day)

Source: Drewry

It should be noted that these rates are based on standard five-year old MR vessels, and there is some evidence that more recently built vessels constructed to particularly fuel-efficient “Eco” specifications are currently able to achieve an additional premium on these levels of up to 10%.

Asset Values

Product tanker asset values have also fluctuated over time, and there is a relationship between changes in asset values and the charter market. Newbuilding prices increased significantly between 2003 and early 2008, primarily as a result of increased tanker demand and rising freight rates. Current newbuilding prices are significantly below the peaks reported at the height of the market in 2008, and in December 2017 the newbuilding price for an MR product tanker was estimated at $33.0 million.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The secondhand sale and purchase market has traditionally been relatively liquid, with tankers changing hands between owners on a regular basis. Secondhand prices peaked over the summer of 2008 and have since followed a similar path to both freight rates and newbuilding prices. In December 2017, a five-year old MR product tanker was estimated to have a value of $24.0 million. The trends in newbuilding prices, second hand values and freight rates for an MR tanker in the period 2007 to December 2017 are summarized in the table below.

MR Product Tankers: Freight Rate and Asset Value Summary

		Spot (US$/day)				Timecharter (US$/day)								Asset Prices (US$ million)
Period Averages						1 Year				3 Year				Newbuild				5 Year Old
2007			23,682				25,367				22,146				49.5				50.0
2008			21,156				23,092				21,500				52.1				51.0
2009			9,043				14,850				15,267				40.3				30.2
2010			10,568				12,388				13,646				35.9				26.4
2011			8,658				13,633				14,575				36.1				28.3
2012			8,000				13,325				14,500				33.2				25.2
2013			9,550				14,346				15,161				33.8				26.2
2014			9,833				14,438				15,417				36.9				27.1
2015			18,375				17,271				16,458				36.1				25.8
2016			9,767				15,125				15,354				33.1				24.8
2017			8,258				13,188				14,333				32.7				23.4
Dec-17			7,900				14,000				14,500				33.0				24.0
2013 – 2017
5 Year Avg			11,157				14,873				15,345				34.5				25.5
5 Year Low			4,800				12,000				14,000				32.0				22.0
5 Year High			23,600				19,500				18,000				37.0				29.0
2008 – 2017
10 Year Avg			11,321				15,165				15,621				37.0				28.8
10 Year Low			4,800				10,800				12,200				32.0				22.0
10 Year High			27,809				25,000				22,500				54.0				53.5

Source: Drewry

The Chemical Tanker Industry

Introduction

The world chemical industry is one of the largest and most diversified industries in the world with more than 1,000 large and medium-sized companies manufacturing over 70,000 different product lines. Although most specialist chemicals are used locally, world trade is becoming an increasingly prominent part of the global chemical industry for a number of reasons ranging from local stock imbalances to a lack of local production of particular chemicals in various parts of the world. In broad terms, seaborne trade growth in bulk liquid chemicals has tracked trends in economic activity and globalization.

The seaborne transportation of chemicals is technically and logistically complex compared with the transportation of crude oil and oil products, with cargoes ranging from hazardous and noxious chemicals to products such as edible oils and fats. Consequently, the chemical tanker sector comprises a wide array of specially constructed small and medium sized tankers designed to carry chemical products in various stages of production.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chemical Tanker Demand

Demand for chemicals is affected by, among other things, general economic conditions (including increases and decreases in industrial production and transportation), chemical prices, feedstock costs and chemical production capacity. Given their industrial usage, chemical demand, and as a result demand for seaborne transport, is well-correlated with global GDP. Seaborne trade in chemicals is characterized by a wide range of individual cargoes and a relatively regionalized structure compared with crude and products. Given the geographical complexity and the diversity of cargoes involved and the way in which some cargoes are transported, estimating total seaborne trade in chemicals is difficult. Essentially, there are four main types of chemical transported by sea; organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals; vegetable oils and fats and other commodities such as molasses.

Seaborne Chemical Trades
(In Millions of Tons)

Source: Drewry

		Organics				Inorganics				Veg/Animal Oils & Fats				Other Chemical Cargoes				Total				% Change
2007			85.8				24.8				50.4				9.2				170.2				2.5
2008			81.0				26.5				52.8				8.9				169.2				-0.6
2009			89.0				25.3				55.0				9.1				178.4				5.4
2010			96.8				26.7				55.8				10.2				189.4				6.2
2011			99.0				28.2				56.8				10.2				194.3				2.6
2012			99.9				28.7				62.9				11.0				202.5				4.2
2013			106.2				27.3				65.8				11.6				210.8				4.1
2014			107.8				28.2				67.3				12.0				215.2				2.1
2015			109.8				29.7				78.2				13.7				231.3				7.5
2016			111.6				30.5				72.6				14.9				229.5				-0.8
2017			117.6				33.5				77.2				16.4				244.8				6.7

The U.S. is the largest exporter of organic chemicals, accounting for approximately one quarter of all exports, while China accounts for approximately one third of total organic chemical imports. The four organic chemicals most frequently traded by sea are methanol, styrene, benzene and para-xylene. Inorganic chemical trade accounts for approximately 10 – 15% of total seaborne movements. They are not traded geographically as widely as organic chemicals and they also present several transport problems; not only are they very dense, they are also highly corrosive. Palm oil accounts for about half of this, with the next top two commodities in this sector traded by sea being soybean oil and sunflower seed oil.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

From a regional perspective, activity is focused on three main geographical areas. Europe is a mature, established producing region, contributing over one quarter of total chemical production. Much of Europe’s production serves domestic requirements. This manifests itself in increased demand for short-sea services, rather than deep-sea trades. North American (predominantly the U.S.) manufacturers produce approximately one fifth of the major chemical products in the world. Although the majority of the U.S. production is for domestic use, particularly where gasoline additives are involved, the country also produces above domestic requirements, which results in significant export volumes.

In the U.S. the chemicals industry will be affected by the development of shale gas. Increased supplies of natural gas in the U.S. have already served to push down domestic gas prices and the fall in natural gas prices has had a beneficial impact on feedstock costs for the petrochemical industry. In particular, the cost of ethane has fallen significantly since 2011 thereby increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. petrochemical industry within a global perspective. Accordingly, U.S. ethylene production costs have fallen to levels where the U.S. can now compete with Middle Eastern suppliers, and this opens up new opportunities to expand U.S. ethylene cracking capacity and subsequently petrochemical capacity. Ethylene cracker utilization in the U.S. has improved and prior to the recent fall in oil prices plans had been announced for a number of new petrochemical plants. Ethylene is a precursor for many of the organic chemicals shipped by sea (e.g. ethylene dichloride, ethylene glycol), so increased production would lead to increased availability of downstream chemical products for export from the U.S. Although the Middle East will continue to be the largest supplier of organic chemicals, the U.S. will be a major exporter of methanol and ethylene derivatives to the Far East market. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Iran’s new methanol projects may have a significant impact on global seaborne chemical trade.

Chemical Tanker Supply

Chemical tankers are characterized mainly by cargo containment systems which are technically more sophisticated than those found in conventional oil and product tankers. Since chemical tankers are often required to carry many products which are typically hazardous and easily contaminated, cargo segregation and containment is an essential feature of these tankers.

Chemicals can only be carried in a tanker which has a current IMO Certificate of Fitness. The IMO regulates the carriage of chemicals by sea under the auspices of the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC), which classifies potentially dangerous cargoes into three categories, typically referred to as IMO 1, IMO 2 and IMO 3. Specific IMO conventions govern the requirements for particular tanks to be classified as each grading, which the pertinent features of each tank being the internal volume and its proximity to the sides and bottom of the vessel’s hull.

The carriage of 18 cargoes is restricted to IMO Type 1 classified vessels, while the majority of cargoes require IMO 2 vessels, including vegetable oils and palm oils. One concession to the IBC Code regulations is an allowance that IMO 3 tankers may carry other edible oils, an exemption introduced because of the tendency for such cargoes to be shipped in large bulk parcels. This often requires ships of up to MR size. Despite this exemption, these vessels are not ‘true’ chemical tankers in the general sense of the word, as they are not able to carry IMO 2 cargoes.

As well as defining the chemical tanker fleet in terms of IMO type, it is also possible to further define the fleet according to the degree of tank segregation, tank size and tank coating as detailed below.

Given the above, a broad definition of a chemical tanker is any vessel with a current IMO certificate of fitness with coated/and or stainless steel tanks and an average tank size of less than 3,000 cbm.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overall, within the product and chemical tanker fleets it is important to recognize that there are a group of “swing” ships which can trade in either products or in chemicals, vegetable oils and fats. For example, a product tanker with IMO 2 certification may trade from time to time in easy chemicals such as caustic soda. Equally, an IMO 2 chemical tanker can in theory carry in products. The sector in which these “swing” ships trade will depend on a number of factors, with the main influences being the exact technical specifications of the ship; the last cargo carried; the state of the freight market in each sector and the operating policy of the ship owner/operator.

As of February 25, 2018, the world IMO 2 Coated and Stainless Steel tanker fleet consisted of 1,619 vessels with a combined capacity of 35 million dwt. The orderbook consisted of 116 vessels of 2.6 million dwt, or 7.5% of the existing fleet. In 2017, provisional data suggest that only four MR chemical tankers totaling 0.2 million dwt were sent for demolition. In addition, chemical tankers are relatively complex vessel types to build and this increases the barriers to entry for shipyards and the pool of yards that owners are willing to consider is small.

World Coated IMO 2 and Stainless Steel Tanker Fleet and Orderbook: February 25, 2018

Ship Type		Size (DWT)				Fleet								Orderbook – Feb 2018												Orderbook Delivery Schedule (M Dwt)
						Number				M Dwt				Number				M Dwt				% Fleet				2018				2019				2020				2021+
Coated IMO 2			10,000+				923				19.7				54				1.0				5	%			0.5				0.2				0.3				0.1
Stainless Steel			10,000+				696				15.3				62				1.6				10	%			0.8				0.5				0.2				0.0
Total							1,619				35.0				116				2.6				7.5	%			1.3				0.8				0.5				0.1

Source: Drewry

The Chemical Tanker Freight Market

Some 50% of all chemical movements are covered by COAs, while the spot market covers 35% to 40%. The remainder is made up by other charter arrangements and cargoes moved in tonnage controlled by exporters or importers. In the chemical tanker freight market, the level of reporting of fixture information is far less widespread than for the oil tanker market. Furthermore, it is not always possible to establish a monthly series of rates for an individual cargo, on a given route, as fixing is often sporadic, or more often than not covered by contract business. For these reasons, the assessment of spot freight rate trends in the freight market is made by using a small number of routes where there is sufficient fixture volume to produce meaningful measurements.

Following an increase in rates in 2011 after the decline in 2009 and 2010, freight rates on most major trade lanes declined during 2012 as market sentiment eroded. In 2013 spot rates on most routes strengthened and in 2014 rates continued to record small gains on the back of increased vessel demand. In 2015, freight rates moved up by 4.6% on account of improved seaborne chemical trade. However, the freight rates on average declined by 4.5% in 2016 as a result of a slowdown in demand growth. Provisional data for 2017 suggest that global seaborne chemical trade grew by 4.1%, whereas, average time charter rates dropped further by 14.2%.

Chemical Tanker Asset Values

As in other shipping sectors, chemical tanker sale and purchase values show a relationship to the charter market and newbuilding prices. Newbuilding prices are influenced by shipyard capacity and increased steel prices; secondhand vessel values may vary because of the country of construction and the level of outfitting of such vessels. Although there has been a relatively high level of activity in recent years, chemical vessels can be difficult to market to buyers due to the complexity of operations in the chemical market and they may not always achieve their initial newbuilding premium. Newbuilding price trends in the chemical tanker sector are more difficult to track than product tankers due to the lower volume of ordering and variation in specification. However, at the end of 2017 prices were generally 30% to 40% lower than the market peak in early 2008. Similarly, in the secondhand market, asset values in some cases have dropped by nearly 50% since 2008.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Government laws and regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our tankers. We are subject to international conventions, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

which our vessels may operate or are registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of governmental, quasi-governmental and private organizations subject our tankers to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These organizations include local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters, classification societies, flag state administrations, labor organizations, charterers, terminal operators and oil companies. Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for the operation of our tankers. Our failure to maintain necessary permits, licenses, certificates or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet, or lead to the invalidation or reduction of our insurance coverage.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, financial institutions, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the tanker industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to stricter environmental standards and these standards are expected to increase in stringency. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, and procedural compliance, together with continuous training of officers and crews to maintain compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly strict requirements. We cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these or future requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our tankers. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution, release of hazardous substances, loss of life or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could result in additional legislation, regulation or other requirements that could negatively affect our business, results of operations or financial position.

International Maritime Organization (“IMO”)

The IMO, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution, has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (“MARPOL”), which has been updated through various amendments. MARPOL establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged forms.

In 2012, the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (“MEPC”) adopted a resolution amending the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (the “IBC Code”). The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and SOLAS. These amendments, which entered into force in June 2014, pertain to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk and identifying new products that fall under the IBC Code. As of January 1, 2016, amendments to Annex I, the IBC Code, require that all chemical tankers must be fitted with approved stability instruments capable of verifying compliance with both intact and damage stability. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

In 2013, the MEPC adopted a resolution amending MARPOL Annex I Conditional Assessment Scheme (“CAS”). The amendments, which became effective on October 1, 2014, pertain to revising references to the inspections of bulk carriers and tankers after the 2011 International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (“ESP Code”), which provides for enhanced inspection programs, became mandatory. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

Air Emissions

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits “deliberate emissions” of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks, and the shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for

TABLE OF CONTENTS

special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions, as explained below. Emissions of “volatile organic compounds” from certain tankers, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) are also prohibited. We believe that all our vessels are currently compliant in all material respects with these regulations.

The MEPC adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding emissions of sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter and ozone depleting substances, which entered into force on July 1, 2010. The amended Annex VI seeks to further reduce air pollution by, among other things, implementing a progressive reduction of the amount of sulfur contained in any fuel oil used on board ships. On October 27, 2016, at its 70^th session, the MEPC agreed to implement a global 0.5% m/m sulfur oxide emissions limit (reduced from the current 3.50%) starting from January 1, 2020. This limitation can be met by using low-sulfur compliant fuel oil, alternative fuels, or certain exhaust gas cleaning systems. Once the cap becomes effective, ships will be required to obtain bunker delivery notes and International Air Pollution Prevention (“IAPP”) Certificates from their flag states that specify sulfur content. This subjects ocean-going vessels in these areas to stringent emissions controls, and may cause us to incur additional costs.

Sulfur content standards are stricter within certain “Emission Control Areas,” or (“ECAs”). As of January 1, 2015, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 0.1%. Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs. Currently, the IMO has designated four ECAs, including specified portions of the Baltic Sea area, North Sea area, North American area and United States Caribbean area. Ocean-going vessels in these areas will be subject to stringent emission controls that may cause us to incur additional costs. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO, or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. At the MEPC meeting held from March to April 2014, amendments to Annex VI were adopted which address the date on which Tier III Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) standards in ECAs will go into effect. Under the amendments, Tier III NOx standards apply to ships that operate in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs designed for the control of NOx with a marine diesel engine installed and constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Tier III requirements could apply to areas that will be designated for Tier III NOx in the future. At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, the MEPC approved the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for nitrogen oxide for ships built after January 1, 2021. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated equivalent (and in some respects stricter) emissions standards in late 2009. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.

As determined at the MEPC 70, the new Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI is effective as of March 1, 2018 and requires ships above 5,000 gross tonnage to collect and report annual data on fuel oil consumption to an IMO database, with the first year of data collection commencing on January 1, 2019.

As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. All ships are now required to develop and implement Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (“SEEMPS”), and new ships must be designed in compliance with minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile as defined by the Energy Efficiency Design Index. Under these measures, by 2025, all new ships built will be 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014.

We may incur costs to comply with these revised standards. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Safety Management System Requirements

The IMO also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 (“SOLAS”) and the International Convention on Load Lines (“LL Convention”), which impose a variety of standards that regulate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL Convention standards. The May 2012 SOLAS amendments that relate to the safe manning of vessels entered into force on January 1, 2014. Several SOLAS regulations also came into effect in 2016, including regulations regarding adequate vessel integrity maintenance, structural requirements, and construction.

The IMO Legal Committee also adopted the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “LLMC”), which specifies limits of liability for loss of life or personal injury claims and property claims against ship-owners. The limits of liability are periodically amended to adjust to inflation. Amendments to the LLMC, which were adopted in April 2012, went into effect on June 8, 2015.

Our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements contained in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”), promulgated by the IMO under SOLAS. The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of safety and environmental protection policies setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. We rely upon the safety management system that has been developed for our vessels for compliance with the ISM Code.

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators also obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel’s management with code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. Our technical managers have obtained documents of compliance for its offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the ISM Code. These documents of compliance and safety management certificates are renewed as required.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the ship-owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in, or invalidation of, available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The USCG and EU authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in United States and EU ports, as the case may be.

Pollution Control and Liability Requirements

Many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as from time to time amended (“CLC”), although the United States is not a party. Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable, subject to certain affirmative defenses, for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil. The limits on liability outlined in the 1992 Protocol use the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights (“SDR”). The limits on liability have since been increased.

The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s personal fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s personal act or omission or by intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading in the territory of a state that is a party to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that of the CLC. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage of 2001 (the “Bunker Convention”), to impose strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention, which became effective on November 21, 2008, requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance, or other financial security, for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). With

TABLE OF CONTENTS

respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in a ship’s bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

In 1996, the IMO International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (“HNS”), was adopted and subsequently amended by the 2010 Protocol. If it enters into force, the HNS Convention will provide for compensation to be paid out to victims of accidents involving HNS, such as chemicals. The HNS Convention introduces strict liability for the ship-owner and covers pollution damage as well as the risks of fire and explosion, including loss of life or personal injury and damage to property. HNS are defined by reference to lists of substances included in various IMO Conventions and Codes and include oils, other liquid substances defined as noxious or dangerous, liquefied gases, liquid substances with a flashpoint not exceeding 60°C, dangerous, hazardous and harmful materials and substances carried in packaged form, solid bulk materials defined as possessing chemical hazards, and certain residues left by the previous carriage of HNS. The HNS Convention introduces strict liability for the ship-owner and a system of compulsory insurance and insurance certificates. However, the HNS Convention lacked the ratifications required to come into force. In April 2010, a consensus at the Diplomatic Conference convened by the IMO adopted the 2010 Protocol. Under the 2010 Protocol, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, compensation would first be sought from the ship-owner. The 2010 Protocol has not yet entered into effect. It will enter into force 18 months after the date on which certain consent and administrative requirements are satisfied. While a majority of the necessary number of states has indicated their consent to be bound by the 2010 Protocol, the required minimum has not been met.

The IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatories to such conventions. For example, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”) in 2004. The BWM Convention entered into force on September 9, 2017. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of new or invasive aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits, and require all ships to carry a ballast water record book and an international ballast water management certificate.

On December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of BWM Convention so that the dates are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This, in effect, makes all vessels delivered before the entry into force date “existing vessels” and allows for the installation of ballast water management systems on such vessels at the first International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey following entry into force of the convention. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (“MEPC”) adopted updated guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) at MEPC 70. At MEPC 71, the schedule regarding the BWM Convention’s implementation dates was also discussed and amendments were introduced to extend the date existing vessels are subject to certain ballast water standards. Ships over 400 gross tons generally must comply with a “D-1 standard,” requiring the exchange of ballast water only in open seas and away from coastal waters. The “D-2 standard” specifies the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged, and compliance dates vary depending on the IOPP renewal dates. Depending on the date of the IOPP renewal survey, existing vessels must comply with the D2 standard on or after September 8, 2019. For most ships, compliance with the D2 standard will involve installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Costs of compliance may be substantial.

Once mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory under the BWM Convention, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and may be material. However, many countries already regulate the discharge of the ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The United States, for example, requires vessels entering its waters from another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternative measure and to comply with certain reporting requirements. The costs of such compliance could be material, and it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such requirements on our operations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.

United States Regulations

The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and clean-up of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

Under OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels. OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:

OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages, which caps do not apply to direct clean-up costs. Effective December 21, 2015, the USCG adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,200 per gross ton or $18,796,800 for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation), and our fleet is entirely composed of vessels of this size class. These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship), or a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident where the responsibility party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.

OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law.

OPA and CERCLA also require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential liability under OPA and CERCLA. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing proof of insurance, a surety bond, self-insurance or a guaranty. We comply with the USCG’s financial responsibility regulations by providing a certificate of responsibility evidencing sufficient self-insurance.

OPA permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters; however, in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining tanker owners’ responsibilities under these laws.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA. However, the status of several of these initiatives and regulations is currently in flux. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Enforcement (“BSEE”) announced a new Well Control Rule in April 2016, but pursuant to orders by the U.S. president in early 2017, the BSEE announced in August 2017 that this rule would be revised. In January 2018, the U.S. president proposed leasing new sections of U.S. waters to oil and gas companies for offshore drilling, vastly expanding the U.S. waters that are available for such activity over the next five years. The effects of the proposal are currently unknown. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes. Additional legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels that may be implemented in the future could adversely affect our business.

We have and expect to maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage or if our insurance providers were to not respond, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The United States Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in United States navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal and remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In addition, many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than United States federal law.

The EPA and USCG have enacted rules relating to ballast water discharge, compliance with which requires the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering United States waters.

The EPA regulates the discharge of ballast and bilge water and other substances in United States waters under the CWA. The EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels) to comply with a permit that regulates ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels (“VGP”). For a new vessel delivered to an owner or operator after September 19, 2009 to be covered by the VGP, the owner must submit a Notice of Intent at least 30 days before the vessel operates in United States waters. In March 2013 the EPA re-issued the VGP for another five years, and the new VGP took effect in December 2013. The VGP focuses on authorizing discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and the 2013 VGP contains ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in United States waters, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants.

USCG regulations adopted and proposed for adoption under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”) also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in United States waters, which require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures, or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering United States waters. The USCG must approve any technology before it is placed on a vessel, but has not yet approved the technology necessary for vessels to meet the foregoing standards.

However, as of January 1, 2014, vessels became technically subject to the phasing-in of these standards. As a result, the USCG has provided waivers to vessels which cannot install the as-yet unapproved technology. The EPA, on the other hand, has taken a different approach to enforcing ballast discharge standards under the VGP. In December 2013, the EPA issued an enforcement response policy in connection with the new VGP in which the EPA indicated that it would take into account the reasons why vessels do not have the requisite technology installed, but will not grant any waivers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

It should also be noted that in October 2015, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that directed the EPA to redraft the sections of the 2013 VGP that address ballast water. However, the Second Circuit stated that 2013 VGP will remains in effect until the EPA issues a new VGP.

Compliance with the EPA and the USCG regulations could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering United States waters.

European Union Regulations

In October 2009, the EU amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water.

Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. Member States were required to enact laws or regulations to comply with the directive by the end of 2010. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims.

From January 2011, new EU legislation came into effect which bans from EU member states’ waters manifestly sub-standard vessels (vessels which have been detained twice by EU port authorities) and created obligations on EU member port states to inspect vessels using EU member ports annually, as well as increasing surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment. The legislation also gave the EU port authorities great powers and control over classification societies, including the ability to request a suspension or revocation of any negligent societies continuing to have a right to retain their classification authority. In addition, new legislation also came into effect in January 2011 which introduced a ranking system displaying shipping companies which had low safety records. These records would be published on a public website updated daily. This ranking would be based upon the results of technical inspections carried out vessels and those shipping companies with positive safety records would be rewarded by being subjected to fewer inspections and in turn those shipping companies with safety or technical failings or shortcomings would be subjected to more frequent inspections.

The EU has adopted new low sulphur fuel legislation which came into effect from January 2015. This requires vessels to only burn fuel with a sulphur content which does not exceed 0.1% while they are in the territorial waters of EU member states, or EU exclusive economic zones, pollution control zones, or Sulphur Oxide Emissions Control Areas (“SOx Emissions Control Areas”). The IMO designated ECAs in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, and similar regulations also came into effect in January 2015, as discussed above under “International Maritime Organization — Air Emissions.”

Recently, the EU has adopted regulations in relation to recycling and management of hazardous materials on all ships. Parts of such regulations concerning carrying statements of compliance and an inventory of hazardous materials, became effective starting on December 31, 2015 and EU newbuilds must be compliant by December 31, 2018 (certain provisions also come into effect between December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2020 respectively). These recycling regulations apply to any vessels which are flagged under an EU member. None of our vessels are flagged under an EU member state. However, even though a vessel is flagged in a country outside of the EU, the vessel will still have to keep a record on-board an inventory of any hazardous materials on vessels and be able to submit to the relevant authorities a copy of a statement of compliance verifying this inventory.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with targets extended through 2020. International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force

TABLE OF CONTENTS

on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships. On June 1, 2017, the U.S. president announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The timing and effect of such action has yet to be determined.

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, an initial IMO strategy for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to be adopted at MEPC 72 in April 2018. The IMO may implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at the upcoming MEPC session.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. Starting in January 2018, large ships calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information.

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, the U.S. president signed an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome of this order is not yet known. Although the mobile source emissions regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, the EPA or individual U.S. states could enact environmental regulations that would affect our operations. For example, California has introduced a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to reduce emissions 40% by 2030.

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the EU, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Even in the absence of climate control legislation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or more intense weather events.

International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization (“ILO”) is a specialized agency of the UN with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (“MLC 2006”).

A Maritime Labour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. Amendments to the MLC 2006 were adopted in 2014 and more amendments were proposed in 2016. The MLC 2006 entered into force on August 20, 2013. The MLC 2006 requires us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the United States Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the “MTSA”) came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The regulations also impose requirements on certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”).

The ISPS Code is designed to protect ports and international shipping against terrorism. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate (“ISSC”) from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state. Among the various requirements, some of which are found in SOLAS, are:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained at port until it obtains an ISSC, or it may be expelled from port, or refused entry at port.

The USCG regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid ISSC that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Future security measures could have a significant financial impact on us. We intend to comply with the various security measures addressed by MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every oceangoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in-class”, signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of International Association of Classification Standards and complies, as appointed, with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery, and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

All areas subject to survey as defined by the classification society are required to be surveyed at least once per class period, unless shorter intervals between surveys are prescribed elsewhere. The period between two subsequent surveys of each area must not exceed five years.

Vessels have their underwater parts inspected every 30 to 36 months. Depending on the vessel’s classification status and constructed notation and other factors, this inspection can often be done afloat with minimal disruption to the vessel’s commercial deployment. However, vessels are required to be drydocked, meaning physically removed from the water, for inspection and related repairs at least once every five years from delivery. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a condition of class or recommendation which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as “in-class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (“IACS”). All our vessels are certified as being “in-class” by American Bureau of Shipping and Lloyds Register. In December 2013 the IACS adopted new harmonized Common Structural Rules, which apply to oil tankers and bulk carriers to be constructed on or after July 1, 2015. All new and second-hand vessels that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery to us. If the vessel is not certified on the scheduled date of closing, we have no obligation to take delivery of the vessel.

In addition to the classification inspections, many of our customers regularly inspect our vessels as a precondition to chartering them for voyages. We believe that our well-maintained, high-quality vessels provide us with a competitive advantage in the current environment of increasing regulation and customer emphasis on quality.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, labor strikes and acts of God. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental incidents, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which in certain circumstances imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the U.S. exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, and other regulations have made liability insurance more expensive for vessel owners and operators trading in the U.S. market and elsewhere. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured against, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Marine and War Risks Insurance

We have in force marine and war risks insurance for all of our vessels. Our marine hull and machinery insurance covers risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from collision, fire, grounding, engine breakdown and other insured named perils up to an agreed amount per vessel. Our war risks insurance covers the risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from confiscation, seizure, capture, vandalism, sabotage, and other war-related named perils. We have also arranged coverage for increased value for each vessel. Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able to recover amounts in excess of those recoverable under the hull and machinery policy in order to compensate for additional costs associated with replacement of the vessel. Each vessel is covered up to at least its fair market value at the time of the insurance attachment and is subject to a fixed deductible per accident or occurrence, but excluding actual or constructive total loss.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. We are a member of a P&I Club that is a member of the International Group of P&I Clubs (“International Group”). The P&I Clubs that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities.

Although the P&I Clubs compete with each other for business, they have found it beneficial to pool their larger risks under the auspices of the International Group. This pooling is regulated by a contractual agreement which defines the risks that are to be pooled and exactly how these risks are to be shared by the participating P&I Clubs. The pool provides a mechanism for sharing all claims in excess of $10.0 million up to approximately $7.5 billion. We are subject to calls payable to the associations based on its claim record, as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the pool of P&I Clubs comprising the International Group.

Exchange Controls

Under Marshall Islands law, there are currently no restrictions on the export or import of capital, including foreign exchange controls or restrictions that affect the remittance of dividends, interest or other payments to non-resident holders of our common shares.

C. Organizational Structure

Please see Item 4.A (“Information on the Company — History and Development of the Company”) in this Annual Report for information about our organizational structure. We have 50 wholly owned subsidiaries and one 50%-owned joint venture entity. A list of our subsidiaries is included as Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report.

D. Property, Plant and Equipment

Other than our vessels, a description of which is included in Item 4.B “Business Overview — Fleet List” of this Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference, we own no material property. We have entered into a lease with a third party for our office space in Cork, Ireland. The lease commenced in March 2016 and is for a period of 15 years, with an option to terminate the lease after ten years. We have entered into a lease which commenced in December 2017 with a third party for office space at Pembroke, Bermuda. This lease is for an initial period of six months, with an option for an additional two year term. We have entered into leases for our offices in Singapore and Houston, Texas with third parties which commenced on March 2018 and April 2016, respectively. These leases are for periods of two years and one year respectively, with an option for a one year further term in Singapore, and automatically for successive one year terms in Houston until terminated. Average aggregate payments under these leases are approximately $0.3 million per annum.

As at February 28, 2018, all of our 28 vessels are subject to liens relating to our credit facilities.

Item 4.A. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements, accompanying notes thereto and other financial information, appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. The consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The consolidated financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

General

We are Ardmore Shipping Corporation, a company incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. We provide seaborne transportation of petroleum products and chemicals worldwide to oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, and chemical companies, with our modern, fuel-efficient fleet of mid-size product and chemical tankers.

We are commercially independent as we have no blanket employment arrangements with third-party or related-party commercial managers. We market our services directly to our broad range of customers and commercial pool operators.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our Charters

We generate revenues by charging customers for the transportation of their petroleum or chemical products using our vessels. Historically, these services generally have been provided under the following basic types of contractual arrangements:

The table below illustrates the primary distinctions among these types of charters and contracts.

Time Charter

Commercial Pool

Spot Charter

Typical contract length

1 – 5 years

Indefinite

Single voyage

Hire rate basis(1)

Daily

Varies (daily rate reported)

Varies

Voyage expenses(2)

Charterer pays

Pool pays

We pay

Vessel operating expenses(3)

We pay

We pay

We pay

Off-hire(4)

We pay

We pay

We pay

A. Operating Results

Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts

We use a variety of financial and operational terms and concepts. These include the following:

Vessel Revenues. Vessel revenues primarily include revenues from time charters, spot charters and commercial pooling arrangements. Vessel revenues are affected by hire rates and the number of days a vessel operates. Vessel revenues are also affected by the mix of business among vessels on time charter, spot charter and vessels in pools. Revenues from vessels in pools or employed in the spot market are more volatile, as they are typically tied to prevailing market rates.

Voyage Expenses. Voyage expenses are all expenses related to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls and agency fees. These expenses are subtracted from shipping revenues to calculate TCE rates (as defined below).

Vessel Operating Expenses. We are responsible for vessel operating expenses, which include crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils, communication expenses, and technical management fees. The largest components of our vessel operating expenses are generally crews and repairs and maintenance. Expenses for repairs and maintenance tend to fluctuate from period to period because most repairs and maintenance typically occur during periodic drydockings. We expect these expenses to increase as our fleet matures and to the extent that it expands.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Drydocking. We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for inspection, and any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements. Generally, each vessel is drydocked every 30 to 60 months. The capitalized costs of drydockings for a given vessel are amortized on a straight line basis to the next scheduled drydocking of the vessel.

Depreciation. Depreciation expense typically consists of charges related to the depreciation of the historical cost of our fleet (less an estimated residual value) over the estimated useful lives of the vessels and charges relating to the depreciation of upgrades to vessels, which are depreciated over the shorter of the vessel’s remaining useful life or the life of the renewal or upgrade. We depreciate our vessels over an estimated useful life of 25 years on a straight line basis to their residual scrap value. The rate we use to calculate the residual scrap value is $300 per lightweight ton.

Amortization of Deferred Drydock Expenditure. Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure relates to the amortization of drydocking expenditures over the estimated number of years to the next scheduled drydocking.

Time Charter Equivalent (“TCE”) Rates. TCE rates are a standard industry measure of the average daily revenue performance of a vessel. The TCE rate is the gross charter rate or gross pool rate, as applicable, per revenue day plus allowances paid by charterers to owners for communications, victualing and entertainment costs for crew. Revenue days are the total number of calendar days the vessels are in our possession less off-hire days generally associated with drydocking or repairs. For vessels employed on voyage charters, TCE is the net rate after deducting voyage expenses incurred by commercial managers.

Revenue Days. Revenue days are the total number of calendar days our vessels were in our possession during a period, less the total number of off-hire days during the period generally associated with repairs or drydockings. Idle days, which are days when a vessel is available to earn revenue, yet is not employed, are included in revenue days. We use revenue days to show changes in net voyage revenues between periods.

Operating Days. Operating days are the number of days our vessels are in operation during the year. Where a vessel is under our ownership for a full year, operating days will generally equal calendar days. Days when a vessel is in drydock are included in the calculation of operating days, as we incur operating expenses while in drydock.

Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues represent revenues less voyage expenses. Because the amount of voyage expenses we incur for a particular charter depends upon the type of the charter, we use net voyage revenues to improve the comparability between periods of reported revenues that are generated by the different types of charters and contracts. We principally use net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, because it provides more meaningful information to us about the deployment of our vessels and their performance than revenues, the most directly comparable financial measure under U.S. GAAP.

Commercial Pools. To increase vessel utilization and thereby revenues, we participate in commercial pools with other ship owners of similar modern, well-maintained vessels. By operating a large number of vessels as an integrated transportation system, commercial pools offer customers greater flexibility while achieving scheduling efficiencies. Pools typically employ experienced commercial charterers and operators who have close working relationships with customers and brokers, while technical management is performed by each ship owner. Pools negotiate charters with customers primarily in the spot market. The size and scope of these pools enhance utilization rates for pool vessels by securing backhaul voyages and contracts of affreightment, which may generate higher effective TCE revenues than otherwise might be obtainable in the spot market, while providing a higher level of service offerings to customers.

Factors You Should Consider When Evaluating Our Results

We face a number of risks associated with our business and industry and must overcome a variety of challenges to utilize our strengths and implement our business strategy. These risks include, among others: the highly cyclical tanker industry; partial dependence on spot charters; fluctuating charter values; changing economic, political and governmental conditions affecting our industry and business, including changes in energy prices; material changes in applicable laws and regulations; level of performance by counterparties, particularly charterers; acquisitions and dispositions; increased operating expenses; increased capital expenditures; taxes; maintaining customer relationships; maintaining sufficient liquidity; financing availability and terms; and management turnover.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ship-owners base economic decisions regarding the deployment of their vessels upon actual and anticipated TCE rates, and industry analysts typically measure rates in terms of TCE rates. This is because under time charters the customer typically pays the voyage expenses, while under voyage charters, also known as spot market charters, the shipowner usually pays the voyage expenses. Accordingly, the discussion of revenue below focuses on TCE rates where applicable.

Recent Fleet Growth

Our current fleet consists of 28 double-hulled product and chemical tankers all of which are in operation. We acquired 14 of our vessels as second-hand vessels, of which seven of our vessels were upgraded to increase efficiency and improve performance. In 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 we paid an aggregate of $209.7 million, $232.5 million, $174.0 million and $1.6 million (as a deposit, the balance of $14.8 million being payable in 2018), respectively, for vessel acquisitions, vessel equipment and newbuilding orders.

As of December 31, 2010, our operating fleet consisted of four vessels. During 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, our fleet grew on a net basis by two, none, two, six, ten and three vessels, respectively.

In 2017, we took no deliveries, however we did pay $1.6 million as a deposit for a vessel, the Ardmore Sealancer, that was delivered in January 2018.

Operating Results

The following tables present our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Statement of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016

		Year Ended								Variance				Variance (%)
INCOME STATEMENT DATA		Dec. 31, 2017				Dec 31, 2016
REVENUE
Revenue		$	195,935,392				164,403,938				31,531,454				19	%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Commissions and voyage related costs			72,737,902				37,121,398				(35,616,504	)			(96	)%
Vessel operating expenses			62,890,401				56,399,979				(6,490,422	)			(12	)%
Depreciation			34,271,091				30,091,237				(4,179,854	)			(14	)%
Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure			2,924,031				2,715,109				(208,922	)			(8	)%
General and administrative expenses:
Corporate			11,979,017				12,055,725				(76,708	)			(1	)%
Commercial and chartering			2,619,748				2,021,487				598,261				30	%
Total operating expenses			187,422,190				140,404,935				(47,017,255	)			(33	)%
Profit from operations			8,513,202				23,999,003				(15,485,801	)			(65	)%
Interest expense and finance costs			(21,380,165	)			(17,754,118	)			(3,626,047	)			(20	)%
Interest income			436,195				164,629				271,566				165	%
Loss on disposal of vessels			—				(2,601,148	)			2,601,148				N/A
(Loss)/profit before taxes			(12,430,768	)			3,808,366				(16,239,134	)			(426	)%
Income tax			(59,567	)			(60,434	)			867				1	%
Net (loss)/profit		$	(12,490,335	)			3,747,932				(16,238,267	)			(433	)%