More annual reports from Nordic American Tankers Limited:
2023 ReportPeers and competitors of Nordic American Tankers Limited:
Diana Shippingd1458032_20-f.htm
Side 1 av 135
20-F 1 d1458032_20-f.htm
ITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549
FORM 20-F
(cid:1)
(cid:3)
(cid:1)
(cid:1)
REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
OR
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ____ to ____
OR
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: Not applicable
Commission file number 001-13944
NORDIC AMERICAN TANKERS LIMITED
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
(Translation of Registrant's name into English)
BERMUDA
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
LOM Building
27 Reid Street
Hamilton HM 11
Bermuda
(Address of principal executive offices)
Herbjшrn Hansson, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer,
Tel No. 1 (441) 292-7202,
LOM Building, 27 Reid Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda
(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and
Address of Company Contact Person)
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
Series A Participating Preferred Stock
Title of class
New York Stock Exchange
Name of exchange on which registered
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 2 av 135
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 3 av 135
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None
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, 2013, there were 75,382,001 shares outstanding of the Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value
per share.
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
(cid:1) Yes
(cid:3) No
If this report is an annual report 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.
(cid:1) Yes
(cid:3) No
Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.
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.
(cid:3) Yes
(cid:1) No
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during this
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
(cid:3) Yes
(cid:1) No
i
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 4 av 135
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See the definitions of "accelerated filer" and "large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one):
Large accelerated filer (cid:3)
Accelerated filer (cid:1)
Non-accelerated filer
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company) (cid:1)
Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the Registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in
this filing:
(cid:3) U.S. GAAP
(cid:1)
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board
(cid:1) Other
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.
(cid:1)
(cid:1)
Item 17
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).
(cid:1) Yes
(cid:3) No
ii
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 5 av 135
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain matters discussed herein may constitute 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. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives,
goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than
statements of historical facts.
The Company desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation. The words "believe,"
"anticipate," "intend," "estimate," "forecast," "project," "plan," "potential," "may," "should," "expect," "pending" and
similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.
The forward-looking statements are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further
assumptions, including without limitation, our management's examination of historical operating trends, data contained in
our records and other data available from third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were reasonable when
made, because these assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult
or impossible to predict and are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or accomplish these
expectations, beliefs or projections. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a
result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-
looking statements include the strength of world economies and currencies, general market conditions, including
fluctuations in charter rates and vessel values, changes in demand in the tanker market, as a result of changes in the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' ,OPEC, petroleum production levels and world wide oil consumption
and storage, changes in our operating expenses, including bunker prices, drydocking and insurance costs, the market for
our vessels, availability of financing and refinancing, changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by
regulatory authorities, potential liability from pending or future litigation, general domestic and international political
conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents or political events, vessel breakdowns and instances of
off-hire, failure on the part of a seller to complete a sale of a vessel to us and other important factors described from time
to time in the reports filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Please note in this annual report, "we," "us," "our," and the "Company," all refer to Nordic American Tankers Limited.
iii
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 6 av 135
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 7 av 135
PART I
ITEM 1.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4A.
ITEM 5.
PART II
ITEM 6.
ITEM 7.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 10.
IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS
OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE
KEY INFORMATION
A. Selected Financial Data
B. Capitalization and Indebtedness
C. Reasons for the offer and use of Proceeds
D. Risk Factors
INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY
A. History and Development of the Company
B. Business Overview
C. Organizational Structure
D. Property, Plants and Equipment
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS
A. Operating Results
B. Liquidity and Capital Resources
C. Research and Development, Patents and Licenses, Etc
D. Trend Information
E. Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
F. Tabular Disclosure Of Contractual Obligations
DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES
A. Directors And Senior Management
C. Board Practices
D. Employees
E. Share Ownership
MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
A. Major Shareholders
B. Related Party Transactions
C. Interests of Experts and Counsel
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
A. Consolidated Statements and other Financial Information
B. Significant Changes
THE OFFER AND LISTING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. Share Capital
B. Memorandum and Articles of Association
C. Material Contracts
D. Exchange Controls
E. Taxation
F. Dividends and Paying Agents
G. Statement by Experts
H. Documents on Display
I. Subsidiary Information
v
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
18
18
20
35
35
35
36
36
41
42
43
43
43
48
48
52
52
52
53
53
53
56
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
60
61
61
69
69
69
70
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 8 av 135
ITEM 11.
ITEM 12.
PART III
ITEM 13.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 15.
ITEM 16.
ITEM 16A.
ITEM 16B.
ITEM 16C.
ITEM 16D.
ITEM 16E.
ITEM 16F.
ITEM 16G.
ITEM 16H.
ITEM 17
ITEM 18.
ITEM 19.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES
DEFAULTS, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES
MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OF
PROCEEDS
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
A. Disclosure Controls and Procedures
B. Management's annual report on internal control over financial reporting
C. Attestation report of the registered public accounting firm
D. Changes in internal control over financial reporting
RESERVED
AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
CODE OF ETHICS
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
A. Audit Fees
B. Audit-Related Fees (1)
C. Tax Fees
D. All Other Fees
E. Audit Committee's Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
F. Not applicable
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LISTING STANDARDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PERSONS
CHANGE IN REGISTRANT`S CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
EXHIBITS
70
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
vi
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 9 av 135
PART I
ITEM 1.
IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS
Not applicable
ITEM 2.
OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE
Not applicable
ITEM 3.
KEY INFORMATION
A. Selected Financial Data
The following historical financial information should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements
and related notes all of which are included elsewhere in this document and "Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects." The statement of operations data for each of the three years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and
selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are derived from our audited financial statements included
elsewhere in this document. The statement of operations data for each of the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
and selected balance sheet data for each of the years ended December 31,2011, 2010 and 2009 are derived from our
audited financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.
SELECTED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL DATA
All figures in thousands of USD except share
data
Voyage revenues
Voyage expenses
Vessel operating expense –
excl. depreciation expense presented below
General and administrative expenses
Depreciation
Impairment Loss on Vessel
Loss on Contract
Net operating (loss) income
Interest income
Interest expense
Other financial (expense) income
Total other expenses
Net (loss) income
Basic (loss) earnings per share
Diluted (loss) earnings per share
Cash dividends declared per share
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
Market price per common share as of December
31,
Other financial data:
Net cash (Used in) provided by operating
activities
Dividends paid
Selected Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Cash and cash equivalents
Total assets
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
243,657
(173,410)
130,682
(38,670)
(64,924)
(19,555)
(74,375)
-
(5,000)
(93,608)
146
(11,518)
(437)
(11,809)
(105,417)
(63,965)
(14,700)
(69,219)
(12,030)
-
(67,902)
357
(5,854)
(207)
(5,290)
(73,192)
94,787
(14,921)
(54,859)
(15,394)
(64,626)
-
(16,200)
(71,213
1,187
(2,130)
(142)
(1,085)
(72,298)
126,416
-
(47,113)
(15,980)
(62,545)
-
-
778
632
(1,971)
(248)
(1,587)
(809)
124,370
(8,959)
(43,139)
(14,819)
(55,035)
-
-
2,418
614
(1,794)
(226)
(1,406)
1,012
(1.64)
(1.64)
0.64
64,101,923
64,101,923
(1,39)
(1,39)
1.20
52,547,623
52,547,623
(1.53)
(1.53)
1.15
47,159,402
47,159,402
(0.02 )
(0.02 )
1.70
46,551,564
46,551,564
0.03
0.03
2.35
40,449,522
40,449,522
9.70
8.75
11.99
26.02
30.00
(47,265)
41,756
(567)
63,497
(12,163)
54,273
57,752
79,728
63,195
95,431
65,675
1,136,437
55,511
1,085,624
24,006
1,125,385
17,221
1,083,083
30,496
946,578
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 10 av 135
Total long-term debt
Common stock
Total shareholders' equity
250,000
754
854,984
250,000
529
809,383
230,000
473
867,563
75,000
469
992,955
-
422
934,084
1
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 11 av 135
B. Capitalization and Indebtedness
Not applicable
C. Reasons for the offer and use of Proceeds
Not applicable
D. Risk Factors
Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and our business in general.
Other risks relate principally to the securities market and ownership of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the
events described in this section could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating
results or cash available for dividends or the trading price of our common stock.
Industry Specific Risk Factors
If the tanker industry, which historically has been cyclical, is depressed in the future, our earnings and available
cash flow may decrease.
The tanker industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability. Spot market rates are
still relatively low compared to the rates achieved in the years preceding the global financial crisis. 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 and oil products.
The factors affecting the supply and demand for tankers have been volatile and are outside of our control, and the
nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.
The factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
demand for oil and oil products,
supply of oil and oil products,
regional availability of refining capacity,
regional imbalances in production/demand,
global and regional economic and political conditions, including developments in international trade and
fluctuations in industrial and agricultural production,
the distance oil and oil products are to be moved by sea,
changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns, including changes in the distances over which oil
and oil products are transported by sea,
weather and acts of God and natural disasters, including hurricanes and typhoons,
environmental and other legal and regulatory developments,
currency exchange rates,
competition from alternative sources of energy and from other shipping companies and other modes of
transportation, and
international sanctions, embargoes, import and export restrictions, nationalizations, piracy and wars.
The factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:
2
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 12 av 135
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
current and expected purchase orders for tankers,
the number of tanker newbuilding deliveries,
the scrapping rate of older tankers,
conversion of tankers to other uses or conversion of other vessels to tankers,
the price of steel and vessel equipment,
the successful implementation of the phase-out of single-hull tankers,
technological advances in tanker design and capacity,
tanker freight rates, which are affected by factors that may affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and
laying up of tankers,
the number of tankers that are out of service, and
changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful lives of tankers.
Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and factors that can affect
the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. While market conditions have improved, continued volatility may
reduce demand for transportation of oil over longer distances and increase supply of tankers to carry oil, which may
materially affect our revenues, profitability and cash flows. As of the date of this annual report, all of our operating vessels
are in the Orion Tankers Pool, with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager. In September 2012, we agreed to purchase the
50% interest held by Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO) and became the sole owner of Orion Tankers Ltd. as of January 2, 2013.
We are highly dependent on spot market charter rates. If spot charter rates decline, we may be unable to achieve a level of
charterhire sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably. If we are not profitable, we may not be able to meet our
obligations, including making payments on any future indebtedness, or paying dividends. Furthermore, as charter rates for
spot charters are fixed for a single voyage, which 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, or alternatively lose this
opportunity, should the rise be short-lived.
Any decrease in shipments of crude oil may adversely affect our financial performance.
The demand for our vessels and services in transporting oil derives primarily from demand for Arabian Gulf,
West African, North Sea and Caribbean crude oil, which, in turn, primarily depends on the economies of the world's
industrial countries and competition from alternative energy sources. A wide range of economic, social and other factors
can significantly affect the strength of the world's industrial economies and their demand for crude oil from the mentioned
geographical areas.
Any decrease in shipments of crude oil from the above mentioned geographical areas would have a material
adverse effect on our financial performance. Among the factors which could lead to such a decrease are:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
increased crude oil production from other areas;
increased refining capacity in the Arabian Gulf or West Africa;
increased use of existing and future crude oil pipelines in the Arabian Gulf or West Africa;
a decision by Arabian Gulf or West African oil-producing nations to increase their crude oil prices or to
further decrease or limit their crude oil production;
armed conflict in the Arabian Gulf and West Africa and political or other factors; and
the development and the relative costs of nuclear power, natural gas, coal and other alternative sources
of energy.
3
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 13 av 135
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 14 av 135
In addition, continuing economic conditions affecting the United States and world economies may result in reduced
consumption of oil products and a decreased demand for our vessels and lower charter rates, which could have a material
adverse effect on our earnings and our ability to pay dividends.
We are dependent on spot charters and any decrease in spot charter rates in the future may adversely affect our
earnings and our ability to pay dividends.
We currently operate a fleet of 20 vessels and all of our vessels are employed in the spot market. We are highly
dependent on spot market charter rates.
We may enter into spot charters for any additional vessels that we may acquire in the future. Although spot
chartering is common in the tanker industry, the spot charter market may fluctuate significantly based upon tanker and oil
supply and demand. The successful operation of our vessels in the spot charter market depends upon, among other things,
obtaining profitable spot charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent
travelling unladen to pick up cargo. The spot market is very volatile, and, in the past, there have been periods when spot
rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. If future spot charter rates decline, then we may be unable to
operate our vessels profitably, meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness, or pay dividends. Furthermore,
as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage which 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 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
energy resources.
Our results of operations are subject to seasonal fluctuations, which may adversely affect our financial condition.
We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result,
charter rates. Peaks in tanker demand quite often precede seasonal oil consumption peaks, as refiners and suppliers
anticipate consumer demand. Seasonal peaks in oil demand can broadly be classified into two main categories: (1)
increased demand prior to Northern Hemisphere winters as heating oil consumption increases and (2) increased demand
for gasoline prior to the summer driving season in the United States. Unpredictable weather patterns and variations in oil
reserves disrupt tanker scheduling. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results, as
our vessels trade in the spot market. Seasonal variations in tanker demand affect any spot market related rates that we may
receive.
Declines in charter rates and other market deterioration could cause us to incur impairment charges.
Our vessels are evaluated for impairment continuously or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. The review for potential impairment indicators and projection
of future cash flows related to the vessel are complex and requires us to make various estimates, including future freight
rates and earnings from the vessel. All of these items have been historically volatile. We evaluate the recoverable amount
as the undiscounted estimated cash flow, from the vessels over their remaining useful lives. If the recoverable amount is
less than the carrying amount of the vessel and less than the estimated fair market value, the vessel is deemed impaired.
The carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time because the market prices
of secondhand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of newbuildings. Any impairment
charges incurred as a result of declines in charter rates could negatively affect our business, financial condition and
operating results. Impairment charges may be limited to each individual vessels. In 2012, we impaired one vessel using an
individual approach. For 2013, no impairment was identified.
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, and
petroleum products, as well as strong overall economic growth in parts of the world economy including Asia. If the
capacity of new ships delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and lost, tanker capacity will increase. If
the supply of tanker capacity increases and if the demand for tanker capacity does not increase correspondingly, charter
rates could materially decline. A reduction in charter rates and the value of our vessels may have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations and our ability to pay dividends.
4
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 15 av 135
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 off the coast of Somalia. Although the frequency of sea piracy
worldwide decreased during 2013 to its lowest level since 2007, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the
Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea, with drybulk vessels and tankers
particularly vulnerable to such attacks. If these piracy attacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being
characterized as "war risk" zones by insurers or Joint War Committee "war and strikes" listed areas, 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 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, financial
condition and results of operations.
If economic conditions throughout the world do not improve, it will have an adverse impact on our operations and
financial results
Negative trends in the global economy that emerged in 2008 continue to adversely affect global economic
conditions. In addition, the world economy continues to face a number of challenges, including the recent turmoil and
hostilities in the Middle East, North Africa and other geographic areas and countries and continuing economic weakness
in the European Union. There has historically been a strong link between the development of the world economy and
demand for energy, including oil and gas. An extended period of deterioration in the outlook for the world economy could
reduce the overall demand for oil and gas and for our services. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions
will last. However, recent and developing economic and governmental factors, together with the concurrent decline in
charter rates and vessel values, have had a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy.
The economies of the United States and the European Union continue to experience relatively slow growth and
exhibit weak economic trends. The credit markets in these regions have over the past five years experienced significant
contraction, deleveraging and reduced liquidity. While credit conditions are beginning to stabilize, global financial
markets have been, and continue to be, disrupted and volatile. Lending by financial institutions worldwide remains at low
levels compared to the period preceding 2008.
Persistent slow or stagnant growth rates in the Asia Pacific region, especially in Japan and China, may exacerbate
the effect on us of the continued slowdown in the rest of the world. Before the global economic financial crisis that began
in 2008, China had one of the world's fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP, which had a
significant impact on shipping demand. The growth rate of China's GDP for the year ended December 31, 2013 is
estimated to remain around 7.7%, approximately the same rate as for the year ended December 31, 2012, and therefore
remains below pre-2008 levels. China has imposed measures to restrain lending, which may further contribute to a
slowdown in its economic growth. China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region may continue to experience slow
or even negative economic growth in the future. Moreover, the current economic slowdown in the economies of the
United States, the European Union and other Asian countries may further adversely affect economic growth in China and
elsewhere. Our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, would likely be impeded by a
continuing or worsening economic downturn in any of these countries.
The state of global financial markets and economic conditions may adversely impact our ability to obtain financing
on acceptable terms, which may hinder or prevent us from expanding our business.
Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile. There has been a
general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly in the shipping
industry, due to the historically volatile asset values of vessels. As the shipping industry is highly dependent on the
availability of credit to finance and expand operations, it has been negatively affected by this decline.
5
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 16 av 135
Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties
specifically, the cost of obtaining money from the credit markets has increased as many lenders have increased interest
rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to current debt and
reduced, and in some cases ceased, to provide funding to borrowers. Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that
financing will be available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable terms. In addition, these difficulties may
adversely affect the financial institutions that provide us with our $430 million revolving credit facility, or the 2012 Credit
Facility, and may impair their ability to continue to perform under their financing obligations to us, which could
negatively impact our ability to fund current and future obligations. As of the date of this annual report we have drawn
down an aggregate of $250.0 million.
The inability of countries to refinance their debts could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, profitability
and financial position
As a result of the credit crisis in Europe, in particular in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the European
Commission created the European Financial Stability Facility, or the EFSF, and the European Financial Stability
Mechanism, or the EFSM, to provide funding to Eurozone countries in financial difficulties that seek such support. In
March 2011, the European Council agreed on the need for Eurozone countries to establish a permanent stability
mechanism, the European Stability Mechanism, or the ESM, which was established on September 27, 2012, to assume the
role of the EFSF and the EFSM in providing external financial assistance to Eurozone countries. Despite these measures,
concerns persist regarding the debt burden of certain Eurozone countries and their ability to meet future financial
obligations. Potential adverse developments in the outlook for European countries could reduce the overall demand for oil
and gas and for our services. Market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could affect our financial position,
results of operations and cash flow.
Changes in the price of fuel, or bunkers, may adversely affect our profits.
Fuel, or bunkers, is a significant, if not the largest, expense in our shipping operations. 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 OPEC and
other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and
environmental concerns. Further, fuel may become much more expensive in the future, which may reduce the profitability
and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.
We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, which can
adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, and our ability to pay
dividends.
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. These requirements
include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (generally referred to as CERCLA), the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Clean Air Act,
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, European Union Regulations, the International Maritime Organization, or
IMO, International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (as from time to time amended and
generally referred to as CLC), the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (as
from time to time amended and generally referred to as MARPOL), the IMO International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea of 1974 (as from time to time amended and generally referred to as SOLAS), the IMO International
Convention on Load Lines of 1966 (as from time to time amended), the International Convention on Civil Liability for
Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (generally referred to as the Bunker Convention), the IMO's International Management
Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (generally referred to as the ISM Code), the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments Discharge (generally referred to as
the BWM Convention), International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 (generally referred to as the MTSA). Compliance with such laws, regulations and standards, 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, but not limited to,
6
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 17 av 135
costs relating to air emissions, including greenhouse gases, the management of ballast waters, maintenance and inspection,
development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our
ability to address pollution incidents. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. 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 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 OPA, for
example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil within
the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States (unless the spill results solely from the act or
omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war). An oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines,
penalties, criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other international and U.S. federal,
state and local laws, as well as third-party damages, including punitive 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, cash flows and
financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends.
Furthermore, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or other
events, may result in further regulation of the tanker industry, and modifications to statutory liability schemes, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Increased inspection procedures, tighter import and export controls and new security regulations could increase
costs and cause disruption of our business
International shipping is subject to security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin,
destination and trans-shipment points. Since the events of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives
intended to enhance vessel security. In 2002 the U.S. MTSA came into effect and to implement certain portions of the
MTSA, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard
vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. These security procedures can result in delays
in the loading, offloading or trans-shipment and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against exporters or
importers and, in some cases, carriers. Future changes to the existing security procedures may be implemented that could
affect the tanker sector. These changes have the potential to impose additional financial and legal obligations on carriers
and, in certain cases, to render the shipment of certain types of goods uneconomical or impractical. These additional costs
could reduce the volume of goods shipped, resulting in a decreased demand for vessels and have a negative effect on our
business, revenues and customer relations.
Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and markets.
Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries and the IMO have adopted, or are
considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures may
include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or
mandates for renewable energy. In addition, although the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping
currently are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
required adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, a new treaty may be
adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and
obligations relating to climate change 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.
Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about
the environmental impact of climate change, may also adversely affect demand for our services. For example, increased
regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil and gas in the
future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil
and gas industry could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot predict
with certainty at this time.
7
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 18 av 135
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 IMO's International Management
Code for the Safe Operations of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO under the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS. The ISM Code requires the party with
operational control of a vessel to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes, among
other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe
operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. If we fail to comply with the ISM Code, we may be
subject to increased liability, may invalidate existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for our affected
vessels and such failure may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.
The value of our vessels may fluctuate and any decrease in the value of our vessels could result in a lower price of
our common shares.
Tanker values have generally 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 oil tankers
can fluctuate, depending on general economic and market conditions affecting the tanker industry. The volatility in global
financial markets may result in a decrease in tanker values. In addition, as vessels grow older, they generally decline in
value. These factors will affect the value of our vessels. Declining tanker values could affect our ability to raise cash by
limiting our ability to refinance our vessels, thereby adversely impacting our liquidity, or result in a breach of our loan
covenants, which could result in defaults under the 2012 Credit Facility. Due to the cyclical nature of the tanker market, if
for any reason we sell vessels at a time when tanker prices have fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel's carrying
amount on our financial statements, with the result that we would also incur a loss and a reduction in earnings. Any such
reduction could result in a lower price of our common shares.
If our vessels suffer damage due to the inherent operational risks of the tanker industry, we may experience
unexpected dry-docking costs and delays or total loss of our vessels, which may adversely affect our business and
financial condition.
Our vessels and their cargoes will be at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as marine disasters,
bad weather and other acts of God, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions and
collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy 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, the payment of ransoms, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage
to our customer relationships, market disruptions, delay or rerouting. In addition, the operation of tankers has unique
operational risks associated with the transportation of oil. An oil spill may cause significant environmental damage, and
the costs associated with a catastrophic spill 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 cause, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil transported in tankers.
If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a dry-docking facility. The costs of dry-dock repairs
are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay dry-docking costs that our insurance does not cover at all
or in full. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these
repairs, may adversely affect our business and financial condition. In addition, space at dry-docking facilities is sometimes
limited and not all dry-docking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable dry-
docking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a dry-docking facility that is not conveniently located to our
vessels' positions. The loss of earnings while these vessels are forced to wait for space or to travel to more distant dry-
docking facilities may adversely affect our business and financial condition. Further, the total loss of any of our vessels
could harm our reputation. 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, financial condition, results of operations and
ability to pay dividends.
If labor interruptions are not resolved in a timely manner, they could have a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
8
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 19 av 135
We employ masters, officers and crews to man our vessels. 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, cash flows, financial condition and ability to
pay dividends.
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
a risk of damage or loss because of events such as mechanical failure, collision, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, cargo
loss and bad weather. 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 or increase our expenses.
International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspections and related procedures in countries
of origin and destination and trans-shipment points. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of the cargo and/or our
vessels, delays in loading, offloading or delivery, and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against us. It
is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us.
Furthermore, 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, cash flows, financial condition
and available cash.
World events could affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Continuing conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and the presence of the United States and other armed
forces in Afghanistan, may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute
to further economic instability in the global financial markets. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to
obtain financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. In the past, political conflicts have 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 South China Sea and the Gulf of Aden off the
coast of Somalia. Any of these occurrences, or the perception that our vessels are potential terrorist targets, could have a
material adverse impact on our operating results, revenues, costs and ability to pay dividends in amounts anticipated or at
all.
The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.
We expect that our vessels will call in ports where smugglers 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, cash
flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
From time to time, our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S.
or other governments, that could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our common stock.
From time to time, vessels in our fleet call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes
imposed by the U.S. government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism, such as
Sudan. The Company has not been involved in business to and from Cuba, Syria or Iran during the period January 1
through December 31, 2013. Our vessels may, on charterers' instructions, call on ports in Sudan. The U.S. 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.
With effect from July 1, 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, or
CISADA, which expanded the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act. Among other things, CISADA expands the application of
the prohibitions to companies, such as ours, and introduces limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business
or trade with Iran when such activities relate to the investment, supply or export of refined petroleum or petroleum
products. In addition, on May 1, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13608 which prohibits foreign persons
from violating or attempting to violate, or causing a violation of any sanctions in effect against Iran or facilitating any
deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 20 av 135
9
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 21 av 135
to U.S. sanctions. Any persons found to be in violation of Executive Order 13608 will be deemed a foreign sanctions
evader and will be banned from all contacts with the United States, including conducting business in U.S. dollars. Also in
2012, President Obama signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, or the Iran Threat
Reduction Act, which created new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions. Among other things, the Iran Threat
Reduction Act intensifies existing sanctions regarding the provision of goods, services, infrastructure or technology to
Iran's petroleum or petrochemical sector. The Iran Threat Reduction Act also includes a provision requiring the President
of the United States to impose five or more sanctions from Section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act, as amended, on a person
the President determines is a controlling beneficial owner of, or otherwise owns, operates, or controls or insures a vessel
that was used to transport crude oil from Iran to another country and (1) if the person is a controlling beneficial owner of
the vessel, the person had actual knowledge the vessel was so used or (2) if the person otherwise owns, operates, or
controls, or insures the vessel, the person knew or should have known the vessel was so used. Such a person could be
subject to a variety of sanctions, including exclusion from U.S. capital markets, exclusion from financial transactions
subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and exclusion of that person's vessels from U.S. ports for up to two years.
On November 24, 2013, the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China) entered into
an interim agreement with Iran entitled the "Joint Plan of Action," or the JPOA. Under the JPOA it was agreed that, in
exchange for Iran taking certain voluntary measures to ensure that its nuclear program is used only for peaceful purposes,
the U.S. and EU would voluntarily suspend certain sanctions for a period of six months. On January 20, 2014, the U.S.
and E.U. indicated that they would begin implementing the temporary relief measures provided for under the JPOA. These
measures include, among other things, the suspension of certain sanctions on the Iranian petrochemicals, precious metals,
and automotive industries from January 20, 2014 until July 20, 2014.
Certain of our charterers or other parties that we have entered into contracts with regarding our vessels may be
affiliated with persons or entities that are the subject of sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, and European
Union and/or other international bodies as a result of the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. If we determine that
such sanctions require us to terminate existing contracts or if we are found to be in violation of such applicable sanctions,
our results of operations may be adversely affected or we may suffer reputational harm.
Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all sanctions and embargo laws and regulations that
apply to us, 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 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 Additionally, some investors may decide not to invest in our company simply because we do
business with companies that do business in sanctioned countries. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or
to divest from, our common stock may adversely affect the price at which our common stock trades. Moreover, 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. In addition, our reputation and the
market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters
with individuals or entities in countries subject to U.S. sanctions and embargo laws that are not controlled by the
governments of those countries, or engaging in operations associated with those countries pursuant to contracts with third
parties that are unrelated to those countries or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of
our common stock may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and
governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.
Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which would have a negative effect on our cash flows.
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 large sums of money to have the arrest lifted, which would
have a negative effect on our cash flows.
In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the "sister ship" theory of liability, a claimant may
arrest both the vessel which 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 ships.
10
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 22 av 135
Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, which may negatively impact our
business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.
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 at government-dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period
of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels may negatively impact our business, financial
condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.
Company Specific Risk Factors
We operate in a cyclical and volatile industry and cannot guarantee that we will continue to make cash
distributions.
We have made cash distributions quarterly since October 1997. It is possible that our revenues could be reduced
as a result of decreases in charter rates or that we could incur other expenses or contingent liabilities that would reduce or
eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. Our 2012 Credit Facility prohibits the declaration and payment
of dividends if we are in default under the 2012 Credit Facility. We refer you to Item 5—Operating and Financial Review
and Prospectus—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Our Credit Facilities for more details. We may not continue to pay
dividends at rates previously paid or at all.
A decision of our Board of Directors and the laws of Bermuda may prevent the declaration and payment of
dividends.
Our ability to declare and pay dividends is subject at all times to the discretion of our board of directors, or the
Board of Directors, and compliance with Bermuda law, and may be dependent upon the adoption at the annual meeting of
shareholders of a resolution effectuating a reduction in our share premium in an amount equal to the estimated amount of
dividends to be paid in the next succeeding year. We refer you to Item 8—Financial Information—Dividend Policy for
more details. We may not continue to pay dividends at rates previously paid or at all.
If we do not identify suitable tankers for acquisition or successfully integrate any acquired tankers, we may not be
able to grow or to effectively manage our growth.
One of our principal strategies is to continue to grow by expanding our operations and adding to 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:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
identify suitable tankers and/or shipping companies for acquisitions at attractive prices, which may not
be possible if asset prices rise too quickly,
manage relationships with customers and suppliers,
identify businesses engaged in managing, operating or owning tankers for acquisitions or joint ventures,
integrate any acquired tankers or businesses successfully with our then-existing operations,
hire, train and retain qualified personnel and crew to manage and operate our growing business and
fleet,
identify additional new markets,
improve our operating, financial and accounting systems and controls, and
obtain required financing for our existing and new operations.
Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely
affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may incur unanticipated expenses as an operating
company. The number of employees of Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the Manager, 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. Finally, acquisitions may require additional equity issuances or debt issuances (with amortization payments), both
of which could lower dividends per share. If we are unable to execute the points noted above, our financial condition and
dividend rates may be adversely affected.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 23 av 135
11
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 24 av 135
If we purchase and operate secondhand vessels, we will be exposed to increased operating costs which 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 secondhand vessels.
We took delivery of four secondhand vessels from July 2009 to September 2011. We did not take delivery of any vessels
in 2012 or 2013. While we always inspect secondhand 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.
We may receive the benefit of warranties from the builders for the secondhand vessels that we acquire direct from yard.
In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel.
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.
If we do not set aside funds and are unable to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, at the end of a vessel's
useful life our revenue will decline, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial
condition and ability to pay dividends.
If we do not set aside funds and are unable to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, we will be unable to
replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their remaining useful lives, which we expect to range from 9 years
to 23 years, depending on the type of vessel. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the
chartering of our vessels. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our
business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends would be adversely affected. Any funds set
aside for vessel replacement will not be available for dividends.
We may be unable to attract and retain key management personnel in the tanker industry, which may negatively
impact the effectiveness of our management and our results of operation
Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of the Manager and our management
team. Our success will depend upon our and the Manager's ability to hire and retain key members of our management
team. Difficulty in hiring and retaining personnel could adversely affect our results of operations. We do not maintain
"key man" life insurance on any of our officers.
Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians) may not engage in any gainful
occupation in Bermuda without an appropriate work permit granted by the Bermuda government. Work permits may be
granted or extended by the Bermuda government upon showing that, after proper public advertisement in most cases, no
Bermudian (or spouse of a Bermudian) is available who meets the minimum standard requirements for the advertised
position.
An increase in operating costs would decrease earnings and dividends per share.
Under the spot charters of all of our operating vessels, we are responsible for vessel operating expenses. Our
vessel operating expenses include the costs of crew, fuel, provisions, deck and engine stores, insurance and maintenance
and repairs, which depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Some of these costs, primarily
relating to insurance and enhanced security measures implemented after September 11, 2001, have been increasing. If our
vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are
unpredictable and can be substantial. Increases in any of these expenses would decrease earnings and dividends per share.
If we are unable to operate our vessels profitably, we may be unsuccessful in competing in the highly competitive
international tanker market, which would negatively affect our financial condition and our ability to expand our
business.
12
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 25 av 135
The operation of tanker vessels and transportation of crude and petroleum products is extremely competitive. The current
global financial crisis may reduce the demand for transportation of oil and oil products which could lead to increased
competition. Competition arises primarily from other tanker owners, including major oil companies as well as independent
tanker companies, some of whom have substantially greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of
oil and oil products can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the tanker
and its operators to the charterers. We will have to compete with other tanker owners, including major oil companies as
well as independent tanker companies.
Our market share may decrease in the future. We may not be able to compete profitably as we expand our
business into new geographic regions or provide new services. New markets may require different skills, knowledge or
strategies than we use in our current markets, and the competitors in those new markets may have greater financial
strength and capital resources than we do.
Servicing our debt limits funds available for other purposes and if we cannot service our debt, we may lose our
vessels.
Borrowing under the 2012 Credit Facility requires us to dedicate a part of our cash flow from operations to
paying interest on our indebtedness. These payments limit funds available for working capital, capital expenditures and
other purposes, including making distributions to shareholders and further equity or debt financing in the future. Amounts
borrowed under the 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at variable rates. 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. In addition, our current policy is not to accumulate cash, but rather to distribute our
available cash to shareholders. If we do not generate or reserve enough cash flow from operations to satisfy our debt
obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing plans, such as:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
seeking to raise additional capital,
refinancing or restructuring our debt,
selling tankers or other assets, or
reducing or delaying capital investments.
However, these alternative financing plans, 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 the 2012 Credit Facility,
the lenders could elect to declare that debt, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and
proceed against the collateral securing that debt, which constitutes our entire fleet.
Our 2012 Credit Facility contains restrictive covenants which limit our liquidity and corporate activities, which
could negatively affect our growth and cause our financial performance to suffer.
The 2012 Credit Facility imposes operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our
ability to:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
pay dividends and make capital expenditures if we do not repay amounts drawn under the 2012 Credit
Facility or if we are otherwise in default under the 2012 Credit Facility,
(cid:4)
create or allow to subsist any security interest over any of the Company's vessels,
change the flag, class or management of our vessels or terminate or materially amend the management
agreement relating to each vessel,
sell our vessels,
merge or consolidate with, or transfer all or substantially all of our assets to another person, or
enter into a new line of business.
13
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 26 av 135
Therefore, we may need to seek permission 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' permission when needed. This
may limit our ability to pay dividends to you, finance our future operations or capital requirements, make acquisitions or
pursue business opportunities.
Volatility in LIBOR rates could affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.
Interest in most loan agreements in our industry, including our 2012 Credit Facility, is based on published
London Interbank Offered Rates, or LIBOR. Amounts borrowed under our 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual
rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin. Volatility in LIBOR rates will affect the amount of interest payable on amounts that
we drawdown from our 2012 Credit Facility, which in turn, would have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and
cash flow.
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 negatively impact our results of operations and cash
flows.
We have entered into various contracts, including charterparties with our customers, through the Orion Tankers
pool, and our 2012 Credit Facility and from time to time, we may enter into newbuilding contracts. Such agreements
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 parties 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, results of
operations and cash flows.
Our insurance may not be adequate to cover our losses that may result from our operations due to the inherent
operational 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, cash flows and
financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage
at reasonable rates in the future during adverse insurance market conditions.
As a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. response to the attacks and related concern regarding
terrorism, insurers have increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts
generally. Accordingly, premiums payable for terrorist coverage have increased substantially and the level of terrorist
coverage has been significantly reduced.
Any loss of a vessel or extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.
Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, which result in significant
expenses to us, we may be required to make additional premium payments.
We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records, as well as
the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive insurance
coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. 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, cash flows, financial
condition and ability to pay dividends.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 27 av 135
14
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 28 av 135
Because some of our expenses are incurred in foreign currencies, we are exposed to exchange rate fluctuations,
which could negatively affect our results of operations.
The charterers of our vessels pay us in U.S. Dollars. While we currently incur all of our expenses in U.S. Dollars,
we have in the past incurred expenses in other currencies, most notably the Norwegian krone. Declines in the value of the
U.S. dollar relative to the Norwegian krone, or the other currencies in which we may incur expenses in the future, would
increase the U.S. Dollar cost of paying these expenses and thus would affect our results of operations.
We may have to pay tax on United States source income, which would reduce our earnings.
Under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, 50% of the gross shipping
income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves, attributable to transportation that begins or ends,
but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be characterized as U.S. source shipping income and such
income is subject to a 4% United States federal income tax, without the benefit of deductions, unless that corporation is
entitled to a special tax exemption under the Code which applies to income derived by certain non-United States
corporations from the international operations of ships. We believe that we currently qualify for this statutory tax
exemption and we have taken, and will continue to take, this position on the Company's United States federal income tax
returns.. However, there are several risks that could cause us to become subject to tax on our United States source
shipping income. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances as to our tax-exempt status.
If we are not entitled to this statutory tax exemption for any taxable year, we would be subject for any such year
to a 4% U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income, without the benefit of deductions. The imposition of
this tax could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to
our shareholders.
If the United States Internal Revenue Service were to treat us as a "passive foreign investment company," that
could have adverse tax consequences for United States shareholders.
A foreign corporation is treated as a "passive foreign investment company," or PFIC, for United States federal
income tax purposes, if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types 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 those
types of passive income. For purposes of these tests, cash is treated as an asset that produces passive income, and passive
income 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. Income derived from the performance of services does not constitute passive income. United States shareholders
of a PFIC may be subject to a disadvantageous United States federal income tax regime with respect to 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.
We believe that we ceased to be a PFIC beginning with the 2005 taxable year. Based on our current and expected
future operations, we believe that we are not currently a PFIC, nor do we anticipate that we will become a PFIC for any
future taxable year. As a result, non-corporate United States shareholders should be eligible to treat dividends paid by us
in 2006 and thereafter as "qualified dividend income" which is subject to preferential tax rates.
We expect to derive more than 25% of our income each year from our spot chartering or time chartering
activities. We also expect that more than 50% of the value of our assets will be devoted to our spot chartering and time
chartering. Therefore, since we believe that such income will be treated for relevant United States federal income tax
purposes as services income, rather than rental income, we have taken, and will continue to take, the position that such
income should not constitute passive income, and that the assets that we own and operate in connection with the
production of that income, in particular our vessels, should not constitute assets that produce or are held for the production
of passive income for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC in any taxable year.
15
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 29 av 135
There is, however, no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our method of operation.
We believe there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and United States Internal
Revenue Service, or IRS, pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and
voyage charters as services income rather than rental 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 our 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 there were to be changes in the nature and extent of our operations.
If the IRS or a court of law were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year beginning with the
2005 taxable year, our United States shareholders who owned their shares during such year would face adverse United
States federal income tax consequences and certain information reporting obligations. Under the PFIC rules, unless those
United States shareholders made or make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse
consequences for such United States shareholders), such United States shareholders would be subject to United States
federal income tax at the then highest income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions (i.e.,
distributions received in a taxable year that are greater than 125% of the average annual distributions received during the
shorter of the three preceding taxable years or the United States shareholder's holding period for our common shares) and
upon any gain from the disposition of our common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably
over the United States shareholder's holding period of our common shares. In addition, non-corporate United States
shareholders would not be eligible to treat dividends paid by us as "qualified dividend income" if we are a PFIC in the
taxable year in which such dividends are paid or in the immediately preceding taxable year.
Risks Relating to Our Common Shares
Our common share price may be highly volatile and future sales of our common shares could cause the market
price of our common shares to decline.
The market price of our common shares has historically fluctuated over a wide range and may continue to
fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, such as actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results,
changes in financial estimates by securities analysts, economic and regulatory trends, general market conditions, rumors
and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Since 2008, the stock market has experienced extreme price and
volume fluctuations. If the volatility in the market continues or worsens, it could have an adverse affect on the market
price of our common shares and impact a potential sale price if holders of our common shares decide to sell their shares.
Because we are a foreign corporation, you may not have the same rights that a shareholder in a U.S. corporation
may have.
We are incorporated in the Islands of Bermuda. Our memorandum of association, bye-laws and the Companies
Act, 1981 of Bermuda (the "Companies Act"), govern our affairs. The Companies Act does not as clearly establish your
rights and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors as do statutes and judicial precedent in some U.S. jurisdictions.
Therefore, you may have more difficulty in protecting your interests as a shareholder in the face of actions by the
management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a United
States jurisdiction. There is a statutory remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act which provides that a shareholder
may seek redress in the courts as long as such shareholder can establish that our affairs are being conducted, or have been
conducted, in a manner oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some part of the shareholders, including such
shareholder.
We are incorporated in Bermuda and it may not be possible for our investors to enforce U.S. judgments against us.
We are incorporated in the Islands of Bermuda. Substantially all of our assets are located outside the U.S. In
addition, most of our directors and officers are non-residents of the U.S., and all or a substantial portion of the assets of
these non-residents are located outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. investors to serve
process within the U.S. upon us, or our directors and officers or to enforce a judgment against us for civil liabilities in U.S.
courts. In addition, you should not assume that courts in the countries in which we are incorporated or where our are
located (1) would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us based upon the civil liability provisions
of applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws or (2) would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us based on
those laws.
16
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 30 av 135
ITEM 4.
INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY
A. History and Development of the Company
Nordic American Tankers Limited, or NAT, was founded on June 12, 1995 under the name Nordic American
Tanker Shipping Limited under the laws of the Islands of Bermuda and we maintain our principal offices at LOM
Building, 27 Reid Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda. Our telephone number at such address is (441) 292-7202. We are
an international tanker company that currently owns 20 Suezmax tankers that average approximately 156,000 dwt each
and our vessels in our fleet are homogenous, interchangeable and should be viewed as the "Nordic American
System". NAT was formed for the purpose of acquiring and chartering three double-hull Suezmax tankers that were built
in 1997. In the autumn of 2004, the Company owned three vessels and at the end of 2013 the Company owned 20 vessels.
We expect that the expansion process will continue over time and that more vessels will be added to our fleet.
In January 2013 we acquired Scandic American Shipping Ltd. ("Scandic" or the "Manager") and Orion Tankers
Ltd ("Orion"). Accordingly, these financial statements are presented on a consolidated basis for NAT and its subsidiaries
("the "Company" or "the "Group").
We describe the "Nordic American System" as follows:
It is essential for us to have an operating model that is sustainable in both a weak and a strong tanker market,
which we believe differentiates us from other publicly traded tanker companies. The Nordic American System is
transparent and predictable. As a general policy, the Company has a conservative risk profile. Our dividend payments are
important for our shareholders, and at the same time we recognize the need to expand our fleet under conditions
advantageous to the Company.
NAT maximizes cash flows by employing all of its vessels in the spot market through the Orion pool which
increases the efficiency and utilization of the fleet. The spot market gives better earnings than the time charter market over
time.
Growth is a central element of the Nordic American System. It is essential that NAT grows accretively, which
means that over time our transportation capacity increases more percentagewise than our share count.
We have one type of vessel only - the Suezmax vessel. This type of vessel can carry one million barrels of oil.
The Suezmax vessel is highly versatile, able to be utilized on most long-haul trade routes. A homogenous fleet streamlines
operating and administration costs, which helps keep our cash-breakeven point low.
The valuation of NAT in the stock market should not be based upon net asset value (NAV), a measure that only
is linked to the steel value of our ships. NAT has its own ongoing system value with a homogenous fleet.
We pay our dividend from cash on hand. NAT has a cash break-even level of about $12,000 per day per vessel,
which we consider low in the industry. The cash break-even rate is the amount of average daily revenue our vessels would
need to earn in the spot tanker market in order to cover our vessel operating expenses, cash general and administrative
expenses, interest expense and all other cash charges.
In April 2010, the Company entered into agreements with Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. to build two
Suezmax tankers of 158,000 dwt each. The purchase prices of these two newbuilding vessels are $64.7 million each and
we took delivery of the two newbuilding vessels in August 2011 and in November 2011.
In August 2010, we did not take delivery of the first of the two newbuilding vessels we agreed to acquire on
November 5, 2007 because the vessel in our judgment was not in a deliverable condition as under the Memorandum of
Agreement between the Company and the seller. The seller, a subsidiary of First Olsen Ltd, did not agree with the
Company and the parties commenced arbitration procedures which took place in London, in October and November 2011.
On January 17, 2012, the arbitral tribunal granted the seller some of their legal costs in their final award decision.
17
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 31 av 135
In October 2010, Nordic Harrier (former Gulf Scandic) was redelivered, from a long-term bareboat
charter agreement, to the Company, and went directly into drydock for repair. The drydock period lasted until the end of
April 2011. The vessel had not been technically operated according to sound maintenance practices by Gulf Navigation
Company LLC, and the vessel's condition on redelivery to us was far below the contractual obligation of the charterer. All
drydock expenses were paid during 2011. A London arbitration panel ruled in favor of NAT at the end of January 2014
and awarded the Company $10.2 million plus direct costs and calculated interest. Any amounts received will be recorded
upon receipt.
On June 1, 2011, in connection with our annual general meeting of shareholders held in Bermuda, our amended
and restated bye-laws were approved and adopted. We increased our authorized share capital from 51,200,000 common
shares to 90,000,000 common shares, par value $0.01 per share. We also changed our legal name to Nordic American
Tankers Limited.
On August 24, 2011, we took delivery of the Nordic Breeze and on November 8, 2011 we took delivery of the
Nordic Zenith.
In September 2011, the Company announced the acquisition of the vessel, Nordic Aurora, at the purchase price
of $24.5 million.
In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion as pool manager. This company was
owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO). In mid-November, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini
Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool.
In January 2012, the Company issued 5,500,000 common shares at the price of $15.57 per share in a registered
transaction, used to fund future acquisitions and for general corporate purposes.
In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would withdraw its nine Suezmax tankers from the pool during
the fourth quarter of 2012. The withdrawal of these vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012.
In October 2012, we entered into a new $430 million revolving credit facility (the "2012 Credit Facility"). The
banking group consists of DNB Bank ASA, Nordea Bank Norge ASA and Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken. See
"Operating and Financial Review and Prospects – Liquidity and Capital Resources -- Our Credit Facilities" below.
In November 2012, the Company announced that one of its vessels was detained for a short while in a U.S. port.
The vessel was released in early December 2012 and was employed in the spot market. The Company was not prosecuted
and was not part of the case.
Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion for $271,000, which was its
nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Effective January 10, 2013, the Company acquired 100% of the shares of Scandic American Shipping Ltd. from a
company owned by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company Mr. Herbjørn Hansson and his family. On
January 10, 2013, the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In addition to gaining full direct
control of the Manager's operations, the Company will no longer be obligated to maintain the Manager's ownership of the
Company's common shares at 2%. The restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares issued
pursuant to the Management Agreement and the restricted common shares issued to the Manager under the 2011 Equity
Incentive Plan were not part of the transaction. Please see section "Information on the Company -- Management
Agreement" for further information about the acquisition.
Effective January, 10, 2013, the Board of Directors amended the vesting requirements for the 174,000 shares
allocated to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and the vesting requirements were lifted.
Effective January, 10, 2013, the Board of Directors amended the management fee. For its services under the
Management Agreement, the Manager receives a management fee of $150,000 per annum for the total fleet. The
management fee has been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements as a result of the acquisition of the Manager
by the Company.
On April 1, 2013, the Company issued 11,212,500 common shares at $9.60 per share in a registered follow-on
offering. The net proceeds of the offering were used to fund acquisitions and for general corporate purposes.
18
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 32 av 135
On June 5, 2013, Orion, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NAT, renewed its commercial agreement with a
subsidiary of the international oil major, ExxonMobil.
On November 21, 2013, the Company issued 9,343,750 common shares at $8.00 per share in a registered follow-
on offering. The net proceeds of the offering were mainly used to acquire shares in Nordic American Offshore.
On November 27, 2013, Nordic American Offshore Limited, or NAO, was established with a private equity
placement of $250 million. The Company participated with $65 million, which resulted in a 26 % interest in NAO. NAO
will own and operate platform supply vessels, or PSVs, and will utilize the Manager for some administrative services. The
objective of the Company's investment in NAO is over time to produce higher dividend for shareholders of NAT than
otherwise would have been the case.
On January 27, 2014, the Company declared a cash dividend of $0.12 per share in respect of the results for the
fourth quarter of 2013, which was paid on March 3, 2014. In addition, the Board of Directors announced its intention to
declare a dividend composed of a portion of the shares that NAT owns in NAO. This portion will be about $10 million
worth, which was equivalent to $0.13 per NAT share.
On April 2, 2014, the Company declared a cash dividend of $0.23 per share. The record date is May 15, 2014.
As of the date of this annual report, we have 75,382,001 common shares issued and outstanding.
B. Business Overview
We are an international tanker company that owns 20 double-hull Suezmax tankers that average approximately
156,000 dwt each. Our Suezmax tankers are interchangeable assets within the Orion Tankers pool, because any pool
vessel may be offered to the charterer for any voyage.
We chartered all of our vessels in the spot market pursuant to a cooperative arrangement with Gemini Tankers
LLC until November 24, 2011. In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion as pool manager
and our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion
of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC. In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would withdraw
its nine Suezmax tankers from the pool during the fourth quarter of 2012. Effective January 2, 2013, the Company
acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion at their nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion Tankers
became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
OUR FLEET
Our current fleet consists of 20 Suezmax crude oil tankers. All of our vessels are employed in the spot market as
part of the Orion Tankers pool. The vessels are considered homogenous and interchangeable as they have approximately
the same freight capacity and ability to transport the same type of cargo.
Vessel
Yard
Samsung
Samsung
Samsung
1997
Nordic Harrier
1997
Nordic Hawk
Nordic Hunter
1997
Nordic Voyager Dalian New 1997
1998
Nordic Fighter
Hyundai
2005
Nordic Freedom Daewoo
1998
Nordic Discovery Hyundai
1998
Daewoo
Nordic Saturn
1998
Daewoo
Nordic Jupiter
2002
Samsung
Nordic Moon
2003
Samsung
Nordic Apollo
2003
Samsung
Nordic Cosmos
1999
Samsung
Nordic Sprite
2002
Hyundai
Nordic Grace
2002
Hyundai
Nordic Mistral
2002
Hyundai
Nordic Passat
2010
Bohai
Nordic Vega
Built Deadweight
Tons
151,459
151,475
151,401
149,591
153,328
159,331
153,328
157,331
157,411
160,305
159,998
159,999
147,188
149,921
164,236
164,274
163,940
Delivered to NAT
August 1997
October 1997
December 1997
November 2004
March 2005
March 2005
August 2005
November 2005
April 2006
November 2006
November 2006
December 2006
February 2009
July 2009
November 2009
March 2010
December 2010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 33 av 135
Nordic Breeze
Nordic Aurora
Nordic Zenith
Samsung
Samsung
Samsung
2011
1999
2011
158,597
147,262
158,645
August 2011
September 2011
November 2011
19
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 34 av 135
OUR CHARTERS
It is our policy to operate our vessels either in the spot market or on short term time charters. The spot market
gives better earnings than the time charter market over time.
We currently operate all of our 20 vessels in the spot market through Orion Tankers pool, although we may
consider charters at fixed rates depending on market conditions.
Spot Market
Spot Charters: Tankers operating in the spot market are typically chartered for a single voyage which may last
up to several weeks. Under a voyage charter, revenue is generated from freight billing, as we are responsible for paying
voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. When our tankers are
operating on spot charters, the vessels are traded fully at the risk and reward of the Company. For vessels operating in the
spot market other than through the pool (described below), the vessels will be operated by the pool manager. Under this
type of employment, the vessel's revenues are not included in the profit sharing of the participating vessels in the pool.
The Company considers it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the Statements of Operations.
See Note 2 to our audited financial statements for further information concerning our accounting policies.
Cooperative Arrangements: The pool manager of the cooperative arrangements has the responsibility for the
commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker
(fuel oil) for the vessels. Revenue is generated from freight billing, as the pool manager is responsible for paying voyage
expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. The pool manager employs the
vessels in the pool under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or
contract of carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. Each participant in the pool is
required to, in relation to each of its vessels, maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and to defined technical and
operational standards and obtain and maintain the required number of vettings. The owners of the participating vessels
remain responsible for the technical costs including, crewing, insurance, repair and maintenance, financing and technical
management of their vessels. The revenues, less voyage expenses, or net pool earnings of all of the vessels are aggregated
and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the period.
In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion as pool manager and was owned equally
by us and Frontline Ltd. In mid-November 2011, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement
to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC. In September 2012,
it was announced that the Company will acquire Frontline`s remaining interest in Orion and that Frontline would
withdraw its nine Suezmax vessels from the Orion Tankers pool in the fourth quarter of 2012. The withdrawal of these
vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012, following which the Orion Tankers pool consists of 20 Suezmax
vessels, all owned by the Company. The Orion Tankers' pool arrangement is managed and will continue to be operated by
Orion. Orion was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. until January 1, 2013. Effective January 2, 2013 the Company
acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion.
Up and until November 5, 2012, the date of which Frontline completed the withdrawal all of its vessel in the
Orion Tanker pool, the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a net basis in its
Statements of Operations. Effective November 5, 2012 the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of
arrangement on a gross basis in its Statement of Operations. See Note 2 to our audited financial statement.
20
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 35 av 135
Time Charters
Under a time charter, the charterer pays for the voyage expenses, such as port, canal and fuel costs, while the
shipowner pays for vessel operating expenses, including, among other costs, crew costs, provisions, deck and engine
stores, lubricating oil, insurance, maintenance and repairs and costs relating to a vessel's intermediate and special surveys.
No vessels were employed on time charters during 2013, 2012 or 2011.
Management Agreement
In June 2004, the Company entered into a management agreement, or the "Management Agreement", with
Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the "Manager". Under the Management Agreement, the Manager has the daily,
administrative, commercial and operational responsibility for our vessels and is generally required to manage our day-to-
day business according to our objectives and policies as established and directed by our Board of Directors. All decisions
of a material nature concerning our business are made by the Board of Directors. Agreement shall terminate on the date
which is ten years from the calendar date, so that the remaining term of the Management Agreement shall always be ten
years unless terminated earlier in accordance with its terms, essentially related to non-performance or negligence by the
Manager.
For its services under the Management Agreement, the Manager receives a management fee of $150,000 per
annum for the total fleet and is reimbursed for all of its costs incurred in connection with its services. The management fee
was reduced from $500,000 to $150,000 per annum effective January 10, 2013. The management fee was increased from
$350,000 to $500,000 per annum effective December 1, 2011 up and until January 10, 2013. In order to align the
Manager's interests with those of the Company, the Company has issued to the Manager restricted common shares equal
to 2% of our outstanding common shares as per the Management Agreement. Subsequent to the acquisition of the
manager, effective January 10, 2013, the Management Agreement was amended and the 2% provision is no longer part of
the agreement. The annual fee has been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements from 2013 onwards.
In February 2011, the Company adopted an equity incentive plan which the Company refers to as the 2011
Equity Incentive Plan, pursuant to which a total of 400,000 restricted shares were reserved for issuance. All of 400,000
restricted shares were allocated among 23 persons employed in the management of the Company, including the Manager
and the members of the Board. On January 10, 2013, the Board of Directors amended the vesting requirements for
174,000 shares allocated to the Manager lifting the vesting requirements by means of accelerated vesting. The
modification to the vesting requirements resulted in $1.1 million being charged to General and Administrative expense
during the first quarter of 2013.
As of December 31, 2013, a total number of 203,000 restricted common shares that are subject to vesting have
been allocated among 17 persons employed in the management of the Company, to the Manager and members of the
Board of Directors. The holders of the restricted shares are entitled to voting rights as well as to receive dividends paid
during the vesting period.
Effective January 10, 2013, the Company acquired 100% of the shares of the Manager from a company owned by
the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company Mr. Herbjørn Hansson and his immediate family, after which
the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Under the Management Agreement, the Manager pays, and receives reimbursement from us, for our
administrative expenses including such items as:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
all costs and expenses incurred on our behalf, including operating expenses and other costs for vessels
that are chartered out on time charters or traded in the spot market and for monitoring the condition of
our vessel that is operating under bareboat charter,
executive officer and staff salaries,
administrative expenses, including, among others, for third party public relations, insurance, franchise
fees and registrars' fees,
all premiums for insurance of any nature, including directors' and officers' liability insurance and
general liability insurance,
brokerage commissions payable by us on the gross charter hire received in connection with the charters,
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 36 av 135
21
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 37 av 135
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
directors' fees and meeting expenses,
audit fees,
other expenses approved by the Board of the Directors and
attorneys' fees and expenses, incurred on our behalf in connection with (a) any litigation commenced by
or against us or (b) any claim or investigation by any governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory
authority involving us.
The Company has agreed to defend, indemnify and hold the Manager and its affiliates (other than us and our
subsidiaries that we may form in the future), officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from and against any and
all loss, claim, damage, liability, cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the Manager or any
such affiliates based upon a claim by or liability to a third party arising out of the operation of our business, unless due to
the Manager's or such affiliates' fraud or dishonesty.
The Manager is consolidated in the financial statements from January 10, 2013, the date of acquisition.
Commercial and Technical Management Agreements
The Company has outsourced the commercial and technical management of its vessels to third-party companies
operating under the supervision of the Manager. The compensation under the commercial and technical management
agreements is in accordance with industry standards.
Commercial management agreements: From July 1, 2010 until November 2011, we placed all of our vessels
in a spot market cooperation with Gemini Tankers LLC, where Frontline Ltd, and Teekay Corporation, together with us
were the main owners of the participating vessels.
In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion. as pool manager. This company was
owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. In mid-November 2011, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers
LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC.
Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion at its nominal book value as of December
31, 2012, after which Orion became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Orion is consolidated in the financial statements from January 2, 2013, the date of acquisition.
Technical management agreements: As of December 31, 2013, the ship management firm of V.Ships Norway
AS or V.Ships provides the technical management for 13 of the Company's vessels. The ship management firm of
Colombia Shipmanagement Ltd, Cyprus provides the technical management for four of the Company's vessels. The ship
management firm Hellespont Ship Management GmbH & Co KG, Germany provides the technical management for three
of the Company's vessels.
Share-based Compensation Plan
Management Agreement: In order to align the Manager's interests with those of the Company, the Company
has issued to the Manager restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares. Any time additional
common shares were issued, the Manager received restricted common shares in order to maintain the number of common
shares issued to the Manager at 2% of our total outstanding common shares. Subsequent to the acquisition of the Manager
effective January 10, 2013, the Management Agreement was amended and the 2% provision is no longer part of the
agreement.
22
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 38 av 135
2011 Equity Incentive Plan: In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a new incentive plan under which a
maximum of 400,000 common shares were reserved for issuance. A total of 400,000 restricted common shares that are
subject to vesting were allocated among 23 persons employed in the management of the Company, the Manager and the
members of the Board. The vesting period is four-year cliff vesting period for 326,000 shares and five-year cliff vesting
period for 74,000 shares, that is, none of these shares may be sold during the first four or five years after grant, as
applicable, and the shares are forfeited if the grantee discontinues to work for the Company before that time. The holders
of the restricted shares are entitled to voting rights as well as receive dividends paid during the vesting period. The Board
considers this arrangement to be in the best interests of the Company.
In 2012, the Company repurchased at par value 8,500 unvested restricted common shares. These restricted
common shares are held as treasury shares.
Effective January 10, 2013 the Board of Directors amended the vesting requirements for the 174,000 shares
allocated to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and the vesting requirements were lifted.
In 2013, the Company repurchased at par value 14,500 unvested restricted common shares. A total of 23,000
restricted common shares are held as treasury shares as of December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, a total number
of 203,000 unvested restricted shares were allocated under the plan.
The International Tanker Market
International seaborne oil and petroleum products transportation services are mainly provided by two types of
operators: major oil company captive fleets (both private and state-owned) and independent shipowner fleets. Both types
of operators transport oil under short-term contracts (including single-voyage "spot charters") and long-term time charters
with oil companies, oil traders, large oil consumers, petroleum product producers and government agencies. The oil
companies own, or control through long-term time charters, approximately one third of the current world tanker capacity,
while independent companies own or control the balance of the fleet. The oil companies use their fleets not only to
transport their own oil, but also to transport oil for third-party charterers in direct competition with independent owners
and operators in the tanker charter market.
The current international financial crisis is affecting the international tanker market. It is expected that the global
fleet will increase during 2014 because of the present order book. However, some shipping companies are now facing
challenges in financing their large newbuilding programs, as shipping banks are more restrictive than before in granting
credit. Assuming current scrapping levels, it can be assumed that the Suezmax fleet may contract in 2014 and 2015, given
the current order book. The current financial upheaval may delay deliveries of newbuildings and may also lead to the
cancellation of newbuilding orders, and there have been reports of cancellations of tanker newbuildings from certain
yards. Shipping companies with high debt or other financial commitments may be unable to continue servicing their debt,
which could lead to foreclosure on vessels. A reduction in available ship finance is curtailing any significant growth to the
order book. Only 4 Suezmax tankers were ordered in 2013 versus 3 in 2012.
The oil transportation industry has historically been subject to regulation by national authorities and through
international conventions. Over recent years, however, an environmental protection regime has evolved which has a
significant impact on the operations of participants in the industry in the form of increasingly more stringent inspection
requirements, closer monitoring of pollution-related events, and generally higher costs and potential liabilities for the
owners and operators of tankers.
In order to benefit from economies of scale, tanker charterers will typically charter the largest possible vessel to
transport oil or products, consistent with port and canal dimensional restrictions and optimal cargo lot sizes. A tanker's
carrying capacity is measured in deadweight tons, or dwt, which is the amount of crude oil measured in metric tons that
the vessel is capable of loading. ULCCs and VLCCs typically transport crude oil in long-haul trades, such as from the
Arabian Gulf to Rotterdam via the Cape of Good Hope. Suezmax tankers also engage in long-haul crude oil trades as well
as in medium-haul crude oil trades, such as from the Mediterranean and Arabian Gulf towards the Far East, i.e. China,
India and other emerging economies in Asia that absorb the shortfall from the traditional routes, from West Africa to the
East Coast of the United States used to represent. Aframax-size vessels generally engage in both medium-and short-haul
trades of less than 1,500 miles and carry crude oil or petroleum products. Smaller tankers mostly transport petroleum
products in short-haul to medium-haul trades.
23
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 39 av 135
THE 2013 TANKER MARKET (Source: Fearnleys)
2013 was the third year in a row with TCE earnings barely covering operational expenses and high bunker fuel
prices remained an issue for the ship owners. While the weak markets in 2011 and 2012 mainly were caused by high fleet
growth, as demand was robust, 2013 turned out more troubling from a demand perspective and fleet growth eased.
The tanker fleet grew by 2.4% in 2013, significantly lower than the 7.3% and 7.4% we registered for 2011 and
2012 respectively. The overall market conditions remained about the same however as trade data available at the time of
writing (through October 2013) suggest tonne-miles for tankers above 55 kdwt size fell -2.5% in 2013, compared with the
same period of 2012. This was caused by a -2.0% drop in volume demand while average sailing distance contracted by
-0.5%. By comparison, tonne-mile demand for the same group grew a strong 4.4% in 2012, driven by a 2.0% growth in
volumes and 2.4% growth in average sailing distance.
There are several factors explaining the slow demand in 2013, however two are key factors. OPEC gradually
reduced its crude oil production from a high at 31.9 mbpd in April 2012 to a recent low at 29.5 mbpd in November 2013,
meaning 2.4 mbpd in transportation demand was lost over an 18 month period. Secondly, OECD commercial oil stocks
was drawn well below its long-term averages in 2013, after building significantly in early 2012 ahead of the Iran sanctions
that was enforced from July 2012. As transportation demand simplified can be viewed as consumption change +/- stock
changes, it is clear that last year's OECD stock draw had a negative impact on tanker demand.
That said, the tanker market had a strong ending in 2013. VLCC earnings averaged $43,000/day in November
and December while Suezmaxes, who saw a strengthening begin a little later than the VLCCs, saw an average earnings of
$50,000/day in December. The improvement could be explained by the typical seasonal factors like higher oil
consumption as the winter sets in and owners defer delivery late in the year to the following, but last year's ending was the
strongest in years hence there was something more pulling. Adding to the typical year-end factors was a notable decline in
newbuilding deliveries overall as the orderbook had come off to healthier levels. While data for first half of 2013 show a
monthly average delivery of 2.47 mdwt, this declined -52% to an average 1.19 mdwt in second half of the year.
Meanwhile, preliminary trade data suggest there was a good growth in long-haul and cross-basin trading period/period,
meaning good progression for tonne-mile demand towards year-end.
Fearnley is forecasting a strengthening tanker market in 2014, although capped by operational factors like speed
and waiting days which still represents some excess capacity that needs to be absorbed before a stronger recovery can take
place in 2015 and 2016. The improving outlook is based on a more transparent orderbook through 2016 that suggest low
fleet growth through the period, while increased cross-basin trading of both crude oil and products is expected to support
tonne-mile demand.
Asset values most likely saw its trough levels in 2013. The higher values started with increasing newbuilding
prices through second half of the year. While a high-quality Korean yard was willing to build Suezmaxes for a price in the
high USDm 50's in Q3'13, the same yard had upped its price idea to USDm 64 in December and current USDm 66. What
drove newbuilding prices higher initially was a growing order backlog and confidence at the yards as other segments in
shipping and offshore had filled most of their capacity through 2016. For second hand prices we note that 5-year old assets
have increased 20-30% in value over 2013, more than the 10-15% increase we have noted for newbuilding prices. Despite
this, second hand prices are still well below its long-term average ratio to newbuilding prices, meaning that a fuel saving
for eco-newbuildings has been discounted in to the prices. It may therefore be relevant to review second hand
opportunities just as much as newbuilding opportunities for those looking to enter the market.
24
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 40 av 135
The Tanker Market 2014
The first quarter of 2014 started on a high note. The spike in rates seen toward the end of 2013 persisted into
January before declining again. Suezmax rates in the first week of January were around $56,000 per day, declining to
around $11,000 by mid-February. US refineries went into maintenance earlier than expected and Chinese New Year
impacted cargo volumes. Rates increased to around $17,000 in the last week of March. VLCC rates were around $39,000
per day the first week of January, and declined less than Suezmax rates until March. The last week of March average
VLCC earnings were around $13,000 per day.
Coming into 2014 vessel values increased significantly. From 4Q13 to 1Q14 5 year old VLCC values rose 22%,
while 5 year old Suezmax values rose 19% in the same period. Price rises tied in with an increase in sale and purchase
activity, likely linked to the strong rate environment in December and January which bolstered interest in crude tankers.
Environmental and Other Regulation
Government laws and regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. We are subject
to various international conventions, laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are
registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel
modification and implementation costs.
A variety of government, quasi-governmental and private organizations subject our vessels to both scheduled and
unscheduled inspections. These organizations include the local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters or
equivalent entities, classification societies, relevant flag state (country of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal
operators and oil companies. Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for
the operation of our vessels. 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,
regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the
scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers
that conform to stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels
that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with
applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations. We believe that the operation of our
vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all
material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations; however,
because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly strict requirements, we cannot
predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or
useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution 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 or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.
International Maritime Organization
The IMO is the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships. The IMO
has adopted several international conventions that regulate the international shipping industry, including but not limited to
the CLC, the Bunker Convention, and MARPOL. MARPOL is broken into six Annexes, each of which establishes
environmental standards relating to different sources of pollution: Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II
and III relate to harmful substances carried, in bulk, in liquid or packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to
sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, adopted by the IMO in September of 1997, relates to air
emissions.
In 2012, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted by resolution amendments to the
international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (IBC
Code). The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and SOLAS. These amendments, which are
expected to enter into force in June 2014, pertain to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of
dangerous chemicals in bulk and identify new products that fall under the IBC Code. In 2013 the MEPC adopted by
resolution amendments to the MARPOL Annex I Conditional Assessment Scheme (CAS). These amendments, which are
expected to become effective on October 1, 2014, pertain to revising references to the inspections of bulk carriers and
tankers after the 2011 ESP Code, which enhances the programs of inspections, becomes mandatory. We may need to
make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 41 av 135
25
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 42 av 135
Air Emissions
In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution. Effective May 2005,
Annex VI sets limits on nitrogen oxide emissions from ships whose diesel engines were constructed (or underwent major
conversions) on or after January 1, 2000. It also prohibits "deliberate emissions" of "ozone depleting substances," defined
to include certain halons and chlorofluorocarbons. "Deliberate emissions" are not limited to times when the ship is at sea;
they can for example include discharges occurring in the course of the ship's repair and maintenance. 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 (PCBs)) are also prohibited. Annex VI also
includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil (see below).
The IMO's Maritime Environment Protection Committee, or MEPC, adopted amendments to Annex VI on
October 10, 2008, which entered into force on July 1, 2010. The amended Annex VI will reduce air pollution from
vessels by, among other things (i) implementing a progressive reduction of the amount of sulfur oxide emissions from
ships by reducing the global sulfur fuel cap initially to 3.50%, effective January 1, 2012, then progressively to 0.50%,
effective globally from January 1, 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018; and (ii)
establishing new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of
installation. The United States ratified the Annex VI amendments in October 2008, and the EPA, promulgated equivalent
emissions standards in late 2009.
Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain "Emission Control Areas", or "ECAs". By July 1, 2010,
ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 1.0% (from 1.50%), which
is further reduced to 0.10% on January 1, 2015. Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new
ECAs. The Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been so designated. Effective August 1, 2012, certain coastal areas of
North America were designated ECAs, as was the United States Caribbean Sea. 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 EPA or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital
expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.
As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. It
makes the Energy Efficient Design Index (EEDI) applies to all new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management
Plan (SEEMP) applies to all ships.
Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine
engines, depending on their date of installation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated equivalent (and
in some senses 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.
Safety Management System Requirements
The IMO also adopted SOLAS, and the International Convention on Load Lines, or LL, which impose a variety
of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL
standards. May 2012 SOLAS amendments entered into force as of January 1, 2014. The Convention on Limitation of
Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) was recently amended and the amendments are expected to go into effect on June
8, 2015. The amendments alter the limits of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim and a property claim against
ship owners.
Our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements contained in the International Safety
Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO
under Chapter IX of SOLAS. The ISM Code requires the owner of a vessel, or any person who has taken responsibility for
operation of a vessel, to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption
of a safety and environmental protection policy 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.
26
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 43 av 135
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. We 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 U.S. Coast Guard and European Union have
indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in
U.S. and European Union ports, as the case may be.
Pollution Control and Liability Requirements
IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the
territorial waters of the signatory nations to such conventions. For example, 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, CLC, as amended by different Protocol in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000. 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 for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of
persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability, expressed using the
International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so
that the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill
is caused by the ship owner's actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship owner's
intentional or reckless act or omission where the ship owner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC
requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner's
liability for a single incident. 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, or 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 requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross
tons to maintain insurance 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 respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills
or releases of oil carried as fuel in ship's bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the
jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.
In addition, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast
Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004. 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. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30
states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant
shipping. To date, there has not been sufficient adoption of this standard for it to take force, but it is close. Many of the
implementation dates originally written in the BWM Convention have already passed, so that once the BWM Convention
enters into force, the period for installation of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements would be extremely short,
with several thousand ships a year needing to install ballast water management systems (BWMS). For this reason, on
December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of BWM Convention so that they
are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This in effect makes all
vessels constructed before the entry into force date 'existing' vessels, and allows for the installation of a BWMS on such
vessels at the first renewal survey following entry into force.If mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment
requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers. Although we do not believe
that the costs of compliance with a mandatory mid-ocean ballast exchange would be material, it is difficult to predict the
overall impact of such a requirement on our operations.
27
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 44 av 135
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.
U.S. Regulations
The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the
protection and cleanup 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 U.S. waters, which includes the U.S. territorial
sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous
substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define "owner or operator" in the case of a
vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. Accordingly, both OPA and CERCLA impact
our operations.
Under OPA, vessel owners and operators 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:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;
injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;
net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees or net profit revenues resulting from injury, destruction or loss of
real or personal property, or natural resources;
loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;
lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal
property or natural resources; and
net cost of increased or additional public services necessitated by removal activities following a
discharge of oil, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and loss of subsistence use of
natural resources.
OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs. Effective
July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17.088
million for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to periodic 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.
CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime whereby owners
and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damage for injury to, or destruction
or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing same, and health assessments or
health effects studies. There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission
of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or
$5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any
other vessel. These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages)
if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary
cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations. The limitation
on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and
assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.
28
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 45 av 135
OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast
Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular
responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by
providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We have provided such
evidence and received certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard's for each of our vessels as
required to have one.
OPA specifically 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. For example, effective on August 15, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that
strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practice. 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.
We 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, it could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in
U.S. 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,
remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. Furthermore, 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 U.S. federal law.
The United States Enviromental Protection Agency, or "EPA", and U.S. Coast Guard, or 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, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.
EPA, has enacted rules requiring a permit regulating ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to
the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters under the Vessel General Permit for Discharges
Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or 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, or NOI, at least 30 days before
the vessel operates in United States waters. On March 28, 2013, the EPA re-issued the VGP for another five years, which
took effect December 19, 2013. The 2013 VGP contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce
the risk of invasive species in US waters, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and the use of
environmentally acceptable lubricants.
In addition, under §401 of the CWA, the VGP must be certified by the state where the discharge is to take place.
Certain states have enacted additional discharge standards as conditions to their certification of the VGP. These local
standards bring the VGP into compliance with more stringent state requirements, such as those further restricting ballast
water discharges and preventing the introduction of non-indigenous species considered to be invasive. The VGP and its
state-specific regulations and any similar restrictions enacted in the future will increase the costs of operating in the
relevant waters.
29
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 46 av 135
U.S. Coast Guard regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, also
impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or
operating in U.S. waters. On June 21, 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard implemented revised regulations on ballast water
management by establishing standards on the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from
ships in U.S. waters. The revised ballast water standards are consistent with those adopted by the IMO in 2004.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, as of January 1, 2014, vessels are 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. On
December 27, 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.
The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, including its amendments of 1977 and 1990, or the CAA, requires the EPA to
promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are
subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and
conducting other operations in regulated port areas. Our vessels that operate in such port areas with restricted cargoes are
equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements. The CAA also requires states to draft State
Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in each state. Although state-
specific, SIPs may include regulations relating to emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by
requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. As indicated above, our vessels operating in covered port areas are
already equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these existing requirements.
Compliance with the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard regulations could require the installation of certain
engineering equipment and water treatment systems to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of
other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels
from entering U.S. waters.
European Union Regulations
In October 2009, the European Union 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.
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. On January 1,
2013 two new sets of mandatory requirements to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships that MEPC adopted in July
2011 entered into force. Currently operating ships will be required to develop SEEMPs, and minimum energy efficiency
levels per capacity mile will apply to new ships. These requirements could cause us to incur additional compliance costs.
The IMO is planning to implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at an
upcoming MEPC session. The European Union has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing
European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from marine vessels, and in January
2012 the European Commission launched a public consultation on possible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from ships. In the United States, the EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety
and has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and large stationary sources.
Although the mobile source emissions regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, such regulation
of vessels is foreseeable, and the EPA has in recent years received petitions from the California Attorney General and
various environmental groups seeking such regulation. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory
initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the
international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make
significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.
30
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 47 av 135
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 Labor Convention 2006 (MLC 2006). A Maritime Labor Certificate and a
Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above
500 gross tons in international trade. The MLC 2006 will enter into force one year after 30 countries with a minimum of
33% of the world's tonnage have ratified it. On August 20, 2012, the required number of countries was met and MLC
2006 entered into force on August 20, 2013 and 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. In 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or the MTSA, came into effect, and to
implement certain portions of the MTSA the U.S. Coast Guard 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 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing
specifically with maritime security. The new Chapter V became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed
security obligations on vessels and port authorities, and mandates compliance with the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is
designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. Amendments to SOLAS Chapter VII, made
mandatory in 2004, apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, or "IMDG Code".
To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a
recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state. Among the various requirements are:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic
transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations,
including information on a ship's identity, position, course, speed and navigational status;
on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the
authorities on shore;
the development of vessel security plans;
ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel's hull;
a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history, including the name of the ship,
the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state,
the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered
owner(s) and their registered address; and
compliance with flag state security certification requirements.
Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained at port until an ISSC is obtained, or may be expelled
from port, or refused entry at port.
The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from
MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels that have on board a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel's compliance with
SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures addressed by
MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code, and our fleet is in compliance with applicable security requirements.
Inspection by Classification Societies
31
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 48 av 135
Every seagoing 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 the
classification society and complies 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, including the electrical plant,
and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:
Annual Surveys: For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and the machinery, including the
electrical plant, and where applicable for special equipment classed, within three months before or after each anniversary
date of the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.
Intermediate Surveys: Extended annual surveys are referred to as intermediate surveys and typically are
conducted two and one-half years after commissioning and each class renewal. Intermediate surveys are to be carried out
at or between the occasion of the second or third annual survey.
Class Renewal Surveys: Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out for the ship's hull,
machinery, including the electrical plant, and for any special equipment classed, at the intervals indicated by the character
of classification for the hull. At the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to
determine the thickness of the steel structures. Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the
classification society would prescribe steel renewals. Substantial amounts of money may have to be spent for steel
renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear. In lieu of the special survey every five
years, a vessel owner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel's hull or machinery to be on
a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle.
At an owner's application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to
extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.
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.
Most vessels are also dry-docked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs
related to inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a ''recommendation'' or "Condition of
Class" or "Memo to Owners" which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.
Any Condition of Class issued by the surveyor will trigger a trading restriction on the vessel as the charterers will
not accept a vessel with a CC.
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). The IACS
issued draft harmonized Common Structure Rules, that align with IMO goal standards, for industry review in 2012 and it
expects them to be adopted in Winter 2013. All our vessels are certified as being "in class" by Lloyd's Register of
Shipping, American Bureau of Shipping, Det norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd. All new and secondhand vessels
that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery under our standard contracts.
Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance
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 piracy
attack. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental
mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually
unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the United States exclusive
economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for
ship owners and operators trading in the United States market. Furthermore, while we believe that our present insurance
coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, any specific claim may not be paid, and we may not always be able to
obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 49 av 135
32
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 50 av 135
Hull and Machinery Insurance
We have obtained marine hull and machinery and war risk insurance, which include the risk of actual or
constructive total loss, for all of the vessels in our fleet. The vessels in our fleet are each covered up to at least fair market
value, with deductibles of $350,000 per vessel per incident. We also arranged increased value coverage for each vessel.
Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able recover for amounts not
recoverable under the hull and machinery policy by reason of any under-insurance.
Protection and Indemnity Insurance
Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I
Associations, which covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party
liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo,
claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other
substances, and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal, with deductibles of $100,000 per vessel
per incident. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and
indemnity mutual associations, or "clubs." Our coverage, except for pollution, is unlimited.
Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1 billion per vessel per incident. The
thirteen P&I Associations 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. Each P&I Association has
capped its exposure to this pooling agreement at $7.5 billion. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of
the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on its claim records as well as the claim
records of all other members of the individual associations, and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising the
International Group.
Competition
As described in the section "History and Development of the Company" we, operate "the Nordic American
System" of 20 homogenous Suezmax tankers 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 on
our reputation as an operator.
Since July 1, 2010 and until mid-November 2011, our vessels were employed in a spot market arrangement with
Gemini Tankers LLC, of where Frontline Ltd., Teekay Corporation, and we were the main owners of the participating
vessels. In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established, with Orion as pool manager. Orion was owned
equally by us and Frontline Ltd., and therefore a related party of the Company as of December 31, 2012. Effective January
2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion at its nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after
which Orion became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
We currently operate all of our vessels in spot market through Orion Tankers pool. This arrangement is managed
and operated by Orion as pool manager. The pool manager has the responsibility for the commercial management of the
participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker (fuel oil) for the vessels. From
time to time, we may also arrange our time charters and voyage charters in the spot market through the use of brokers,
who negotiate the terms of the charters based on market conditions. We compete primarily with owners of tankers in the
Suezmax class size. Ownership of tankers is highly fragmented.
Permits and Authorizations
We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses
and certificates with respect to our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required depend upon several
factors, including the commodity transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel's crew
and the age of a vessel. We have been able to obtain all permits, licenses and certificates currently required to permit our
vessels to operate. Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit our
ability to do business or increase our cost of doing business.
33
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 51 av 135
Seasonality
Historically, oil trade and, therefore, charter rates increased in the winter months and eased in the summer
months as demand for oil in the Northern Hemisphere rose in colder weather and fell in warmer weather. The tanker
industry, in general, has become less dependent on the seasonal transport of heating oil than a decade ago as new uses for
oil and oil products have developed, spreading consumption more evenly over the year. This is most apparent from the
higher seasonal demand during the summer months due to energy requirements for air conditioning and motor vehicles.
C. Organizational Structure
Since May 30, 2003, Scandic American Shipping Ltd. has acted as the Company's Manager, and provides such
services pursuant to the Management Agreement. The Management Agreement was amended on October 12, 2004 to
further align the Manager's interests with those of the Company as a shareholder of the Company. On January 10, 2013,
the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Scandic is based on Bermuda, and has an European
branch. See Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—The Management Agreement.
Since November 11, 2011, Orion Tankers Ltd has been the pool manager for the Company's vessels. On January
3, 2013, Orion became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Orion Tankers Ltd consists of the parent company
based in Bermuda, and its wholly owned subsidiary Orion Tankers AS which is based in Norway.
D. Property, Plants and Equipment
See Items 4–Information on the Company–Business Overview–Our Fleet, for a description of our vessels. The
vessels are mortgaged as collateral under the 2012 Credit Facility.
ITEM 4A.
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
34
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 52 av 135
ITEM 5.
OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS
The following management's discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our historical financial
statements and their notes included elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that
reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. Our actual results may differ materially
from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, such as those set forth in the
section entitled "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this annual report.
A. Operating Results
We present our Statement of Operations using voyage revenues and voyage expenses. During the years ended
December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, all of our vessels were employed in the spot market.
Under a spot charter, revenue is generated from freight billing and is included in voyage revenue. Under a spot
charter, the vessel owner pays all vessel voyage expenses and these expenses are included in voyage expenses. We
consider it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Our homogenous and interchangeable fleet is operated by Orion Tankers pool and the pool manager employs the
vessels under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or contract of
carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. The fleet is considered homogenous in
terms of freight capacity and the types of cargoes that can be transported and the vessels are interchangeable as the Pool
Manager can nominate any vessel to a specific charterer for a specific voyage. The voyage revenues less voyage expenses
of all of the vessels in the pool are aggregated and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the
period. From November 2011 through November 5, 2012, we have considered it appropriate to present this type of
arrangement on a net basis in our Statements of Operations. In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would
withdraw its nine Suezmax tankers from the Orion Tankers pool during the fourth quarter of 2012. The withdrawal of
these vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012, after which all vessels in the Orion Tankers pool are owned by
us. We have considered it appropriate to present this type of cooperative arrangement on a gross basis in the Statement of
Operations effective from November 5, 2012. Effective January 2, 2013, the owner of the Orion Tankers Pool, Orion is a
wholly owned subsidiary of NAT after the Company acquired the remaining 50 % of the shares which were previously
held by Frontline.
For further information, see "Item 4.B—Business Overview—Our Charters."
Since the amount of voyage expenses that we incur for a charter depends on the type of the charter, we use net
voyage revenues to provide comparability among the different types of charters. Management believes that net voyage
revenue, a non-GAAP financial measure, provides more meaningful disclosure than voyage revenues, the most directly
comparable financial measure under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or US GAAP because
it enables us to compare the profitability of our vessels which are employed under bareboat charters, spot related time
charters and spot charters. Net voyage revenues divided by the number of days on the charter provides the Time Charter
Equivalent (TCE) rate. Net voyage revenues and TCE rates are widely used by investors and analysts in the tanker
shipping industry for comparing the financial performance of companies and for preparing industry averages. We believe
that our method of calculating net voyage revenue is consistent with industry standards. The following table reconciles our
net voyage revenues to voyage revenues.
35
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 53 av 135
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
All figures in USD '000
Voyage Revenue
Voyage Expenses
Vessel Operating Expenses
General and Administrative Expenses
Depreciation Expenses
Impairment of Vessel
Loss on Contract
Net Operating (Loss) Income
Interest Income
Interest Expenses
Other Financial Income (Expenses)
Net (Loss) Income
Year Ended December
31,
2013
243,657
(173,410)
(64,924)
(19,555)
(74,375)
-
(5,000)
(93,608)
146
(11,518)
(437)
(105,417)
2012
130,682
(38,670)
(63,965)
(14,700)
(69,219)
(12,030)
-
(67,902)
357
(5,854)
207
(73,192)
Variance
86.5%
(348.4%)
(1.5%)
(33.0%)
(7.4%)
-
-
37.9%
(59.3%)
(96.8%)
(311.2%)
(44.0%)
All figures in USD '000
Voyage
Revenue – net pool
earnings
Voyage Revenue –
gross freight
Total Voyage
Revenue
Less Voyage expenses
– gross
Net Voyage Revenue
Vessel Calendar Days
(1)
Less off-hire days
Total TCE days
TCE Rate per day (2)
Total Days – vessel
operating expenses
Year Ended December 31,
2013
2012
Variance
-
243,657
243,657
(173,410)
70,246
7,300
971
6,329
11,099
7,300
$
77,287
53,395
130,682
(38,670)
92,012
7,320
555
6,765
13,601
7,320
$
-
-
-
-
(23.7%)
(0.3%)
75%
(6.4%)
(18.4%)
(0.3%)
(1) Vessel Calendar Days is the total number of days the vessels were in our fleet.
(2) Time Charter Equivalent, ("TCE"), results from Net Voyage Revenue divided by Total TCE days.
Voyage revenue was $243.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $130.7 million for the
year ended December 31, 2012. The change in Voyage revenue is due to four main factors:
Changes in the type of vessel employment
i)
ii) Whether the employment was accounted for on a net or gross basis
iii)
iv)
The number of TCE days
The change in the TCE rate achieved.
On i), for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 we employed all vessels in the spot market, either as spot charters
or through cooperative arrangements. No vessels were employed on time charters.
On ii), all our vessels were employed as spot charters during the year ended December 31, 2013 presented on gross basis.
For the year ended December 31, 2012 all our vessels were employed through cooperative arrangements presented on a
net basis until November 5, 2012, except four vessels, which were temporarily operated on spot charters. From November
5 until the year ended 2012 all our vessels were employed as spot charters presented on a gross basis.
On iii), the increase in off hire days to 971 for the year ended December 31, 2013 from 555 days for the year ended
December 31, 2012 was partly a result of planned off-hire of 757 days in connection with required drydockings in 2013.
The increase in off hire days was the primary reason for the 6.4 % decrease in TCE days.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 54 av 135
On iv), the TCE rate per day was $11,099 for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $13,601 for the year ended
December 31, 2012, representing a decrease of 18.4%. The indicative spot rates presented by Marex Spectron for the
twelve months of 2013 and 2012 decreased by 6.1 % to $14,615 from $15,577, respectively. The average Marex Spectron
rates for the year ended 2013 were significantly influenced by the spike in the market in December. The year to date
average as of November 30, 2013 was $12,125, representing a decrease of 22.2 % compared to the year ended December
31, 2012. The effect of this spike will not materialize for the Company until the first quarter of 2014.
36
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 55 av 135
As a result of iii) and iv), net voyage revenues decreased by 23.7% from $92.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2012, to $70.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013.
Voyage expenses were $173.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $38.7 million for the
year ended December 31, 2012, representing an increase of 348.4%. The increase in voyage expenses was primarily a
result of changes to the presentation of net voyage revenues from cooperative arrangements from net basis presentation to
gross basis presentation, effective as of November 5, 2012, as of which date the Orion Tankers pool consisted only of
vessel owned by us. For the period ended November 5, 2012 voyage expenses consisted of fuel, port charges and
commissions from all our vessels operated in the spot market.
Vessel operating expenses were $64.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $63.9 million
for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of 1.5%. Vessel operating expenses incurred regardless of off-hire
days, and reflect a stable average operating expense per day of $8,700 for the years ended 2013 and 2012.
General and administrative expenses were $19.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to
$14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of 33%. The increase of $4.9 million is a result of non-
recurring items. These were charges of $3.6 million related to the acquisition of Scandic American Shipping Ltd and $1.0
million in legal fees related to the Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC arbitration.
Depreciation expenses were $74.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $69.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of 7.4%. The increase of $5.2 million in depreciation expenses for the year
ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 is a result of drydocking cost capitalized in
2012 being amortized over a full year in 2013 and drydocking of seven vessels in 2013 being partially amortized.
Impairment Loss on vessels was $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $12.0 million
for the year ended December 31, 2012. The impairment loss in 2012 relates to one vessel where we believed that future
undiscounted cash flow was less than the carrying value.
We recorded a settlement loss of $5.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $0.0
million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The settlement loss relates to a preexisting contractual relationship
between us and Scandic American Shipping Ltd, which was recognized when the purchase of Scandic was completed.
Net operating loss was $93.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to net operating loss of
$67.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of 37.9%. The increase in net operating loss of $25.7
million is primarily caused by the reduction in net voyage caused by a significant reduction in the spot market rates, and
charges of $8.6 million related to the acquisition of Scandic American Shipping Ltd and of $1.0 million related to the Gulf
Navigation Holding PJSC arbitration.
Interest income was $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $0.4 million for the year
ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $0.2 million. The decrease in interest is caused by the Company holding less
excess cash in the period.
Interest expense was $11.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $5.9 million for the year
ended December 31, 2012. The increase in interest expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013 is due to an increase in
interest rates during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012.
37
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 56 av 135
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
All figures in USD '000
Voyage Revenue
Voyage Expenses
Vessel Operating Expenses
General and Administrative Expenses
Depreciation Expense
Impairment of Vessel
Loss on Contract
Net Operating Loss
Interest Income
Interest Expense
Other Financial Expense
Net Loss
All figures in USD '000
Voyage Revenue – net pool earnings
Voyage Revenue – gross freight
Total Voyage Revenue
Less Voyage expenses – gross voyage expenses
Net Voyage Revenue
Vessel Calendar Days (1)
Less off-hire days (2)
Total TCE days
TCE Rate per day (3)
Total Days – vessel operating expenses
Year Ended December
31,
2012
130,682
(38,670)
(63,965)
(14,700)
(69,219)
(12,030)
-
(67,902)
357
(5,854)
207
(73,192)
2011
94,787
(14,921)
(54,859)
(15,394)
(64,626)
-
(16,200)
(71,213)
1,187
(2,130)
(142)
(72,298)
Variance
37.9%
(159.2%)
(16.6%)
(4.5%)
(7.1%)
-
-
4.6%
(69.9%)
(174.8%)
245.8%
1.2%
Year Ended December
31,
2012
77,287
53,395
130,682
(38,670)
92,012
7,320
555
6,765
$ 13,601
7,320
2011
76,618
18,169
94,787
(14,921)
79,866
6,367
116
6,251
$ 12,777
6,370
Variance
0.9%
193.9%
37.9%
(159.2%)
15.2%
15.0%
378.4%
8.2%
6.4%
14.9%
(1) Vessel Calendar Days is the total number of days the vessels were in our fleet.
(2) The Nordic Harrier (former Gulf Scandic) was redelivered from a bareboat charter in October 2010 and went
directly into drydock for repairs. The drydock period was completed in late April 2011 and the vessel was
employed in the spot market pursuant to cooperative arrangements on May 1, 2011. The calendar days and the
off-hire days in connection with the drydock period of the Nordic Harrier are not included in this table because
the vessel had not operated in the spot market prior to May 1, 2011 and as a result, the number of calendar and
off-hire days would not have an impact on the comparison of TCE rate per day.
(3) Time Charter Equivalent, ("TCE"), results from Net Voyage Revenue divided by Total TCE days.
Voyage revenue was $130.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $94.8 million for the
year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 37.9%. The increase in voyage revenue was primarily a result
of changes to the presentation of net voyage revenues from cooperative arrangements from net basis presentation to gross
basis presentation, effective as of November 5, 2012, as of which date the Orion Tankers pool consisted only of vessels
owned by the Company.
Voyage expenses were $38.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $14.9 million for the
year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 159.2%. The increase in voyage expenses was primarily a
result of changes to the presentation of net voyage revenues from cooperative arrangements from net basis presentation to
gross basis presentation, effective as of November 5, 2012, as of which date the Orion Tankers pool consisted only of
vessel owned by the Company. For the period ended November 5, 2012 voyage expenses consisted of fuel, port charges
and commissions from all our vessels operated in the spot market.
Net voyage revenue were $92.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $79.9 million for the
year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 15.2%. The increase in net voyage revenues was primarily a
result of an increase in revenue days of 8.2%, due to revenue days for the full year in 2012 for the three vessels delivered
in 2011, and due to revenue days for the full year in 2012 for the Nordic Harrier which was employed in the spot market
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 57 av 135
pursuant to a cooperative arrangement on May 1, 2011.The increase in net voyage revenues was also the result of an
increase in the spot market rates for the period. Average TCE rate was $13,601 for the year ended December 31, 2012
compared to $12,777 for the year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 6.5%. The revenue days consist
of vessel calendar days less vessel off-hire days. The increase in off hire days to 555 days for the year ended December
31, 2012 from 116 days for the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily the result of planned off hire days in
connection with our eight vessels that required dry dockings in 2012.
38
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 58 av 135
Vessel operating expenses were $63.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $54.9 million
for the year ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 16.6%. The increase in operating expenses was a result of an
increase in operating days of 14.9%, due to operating days for the full year in 2012 of the three vessels delivered in 2011,
and due to operating days for the Nordic Harrier which was employed in the spot market from May 1, 2011. The increase
in operating expenses was also due to an increase in the average operating expenses per day of $8,700 for the year ended
December 31, 2012 from $8,600 per day for the year ended December 31, 2011.
General and administrative expenses were $14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to
$15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of 4.5%. The decrease of $0.7 million is a result of an
increase of $1.1 million related to share-based compensation and pension costs, an increase of $0.5 million in salary,
wages and management fee, offset by a decrease of $2.3 million in legal fees due to the arbitration procedures for the
Nordic Galaxy expensed in 2011. General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 include $4.2
million in expenses related to share-based compensation and pension costs as compared to $3.1 million for the year ended
December 31, 2011. The increase in general and administrative expenses of $1.1 million related to share-based
compensation and pension costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared for the year ended December 31, 2011,
is a result of an increase in costs of $1.5 million related to the issuance of restricted shares to the Manager under the
Management Agreement after a follow-on offering that was conducted in January 2012 as compared to no such costs for
the year ended December 31, 2011. In addition, a decrease in costs of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012
is attributable to foreign currency exchange fluctuations of $0.8 million and increase of $0.6 million as a result of the
financial assumptions related to deferred compensation agreements which are denominated in Norwegian Krone.
Depreciation expenses were $69.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $64.6 million for
the year ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 7.1%. The increase of $4.6 million in depreciation expenses for the year
ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011 is a result of an increase of depreciation for the
full year in 2012 of the three vessels delivered in 2011, and an increase in amortization expenses of drydocking costs
related to capitalized drydocking costs during 2012 and 2011.
Impairment Loss on vessels was $12.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $0.0 million
for the year ended December 31, 2011. The impairment loss relates to one vessel where we believed that future
undiscounted cash flow was less than the carrying value. A portfolio approach would cause no impairment charge as the
combined undiscounted cashflows are considerably in excess of the combined carrying value of our fleet.
Loss on Contract was $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $16.2 million for the year
ended December 31, 2011. Loss on Contract was a result of the award granted by the arbitral tribunal related to the
arbitration involving the Nordic Galaxy in 2011.
Net operating loss was $67.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to net operating loss of
$71.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of 4.7%. The decrease in net operating loss of $3.3
million was due to an increase in revenue days and an increase in spot market rates, offset by an increase in vessel
operating expenses and depreciation expenses due to expansion of the fleet by three vessels during 2011. The net
operating loss was also impacted by recorded an impairment loss on vessels of $12.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2012 and by recorded an loss of contract of $16.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Interest income was $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $1.2 million for the year
ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of $0.8 million. The decrease in interest income was primarily due to the Company
recorded interest income of $0.0 million derived from a loan furnished to the seller of Nordic Galaxy for the year ended
December 31, 2012 compared to $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in interest income was
offset by an increase in interest income of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $0.0 million
for the year ended December 31, 2011 due to increase of cash on hand.
Interest expense was $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $2.1 million for the year
ended December 31, 2011. The increase in interest expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 is the result of an
increase in amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility to $250.0 million from $230.0 million as of December 31,
2011. The increase in interest expenses is also the result of an increase of amortization of deferred finance costs in
connection with refinancing of the 2012 Credit Facility and an increase in interest rates for the year ended December 31,
2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011.
39
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 59 av 135
Inflation
Inflation has had only a moderate effect on our expenses given recent economic conditions. In the event that
significant global inflationary pressures appear, these pressures would increase our operating costs.
B. Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our Credit Facilities
2005 Credit Facility
We had a $500 million revolving credit facility, which is referred to as the 2005 Credit Facility. The 2005 Credit
Facility provided funding for future vessel acquisitions and general corporate purposes. Amounts borrowed under the
2005 Credit Facility borne interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin between 0.7% and 1.2% (depending on
the loan to vessel value ratio). We paid a commitment fee of 30% of the applicable margin on any undrawn amounts.
Borrowings under the 2005 Credit facility were secured by first priority mortgage over the Company's vessels and
assignment of earning and insurance.
The 2005 Credit Facility was repaid to the lenders on November 14, 2012.
2012 Credit Facility
On October 26, 2012, we entered into a $430 million revolving credit facility with a syndicate of lenders in order
to refinance the 2005 Credit Facility, fund future vessel acquisitions and for general corporate purposes (the "2012 Credit
Facility"). Amounts borrowed under the 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin
and the Company pays a commitment fee, which is a percentage of the applicable margin, on any undrawn amounts. The
2012 Credit Facility matures in late October 2017.
Borrowings under the 2012 Credit Facility are secured by first priority mortgages over the Company's vessels and
assignments of earnings and insurance. Under the 2012 Credit Facility, we are subject to certain covenants requiring
among other things, the maintenance of (i) a minimum amount of equity; (ii) a minimum equity ratio; (iii) a minimum
level of liquidity; and (iv) positive working capital. The 2012 Credit Facility also includes customary events of default
including non-payment, breach of covenants, insolvency, cross default and material adverse change. The Company is
permitted to pay dividends in accordance with its dividend policy as long as it is not in default under the 2012 Credit
Facility. The finance costs of $6.1 million incurred in connection with the refinancing of the 2012 Credit Facility are
deferred and amortized over the term of the 2012 Credit Facility on a straight-line basis.
As of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 the Company had $250.0 million outstanding under the 2012
Credit Facility and $180.0 million available for additional borrowing. We were in compliance with our loan covenants
under the 2012 Credit Facility as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Cash on hand was $65.7 million as of
December 31, 2013.
Management believes that the Company's working capital is sufficient for its present requirements.
Cash Flow
40
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 60 av 135
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
Cash flows (used in) operating activities increased to ($47.3) million for the year ended December 31, 2013 from
($0.6) million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase in cash flows used in operating activities is primarily
due to a decrease in spot market rates, an increase in offhire days and cash tied up in short term receivables. The increase
in short term receivables of $ 20.8 million is due to higher activity in December 2013 compared to December 2012.
Cash flows (used in) investing activities decreased to ($73.3) million for the year ended December 31, 2013
compared to cash flows provided by investing activities of $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Cash flows
used in investing activities during 2013 consist primarily of the acquisition of Nordic American Offshore Ltd and Scandic
American Shipping Ltd. $18.1 million of the purchase price of Scandic American Shipping Ltd. was paid in shares, which
was issued to the seller.
Cash flows provided by financing activities increased to $130.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2013
compared to cash flow provided by financing activities of $25.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The
financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2013 consist of proceeds from two follow-on offerings of $172.6
million in total offset by dividends paid.
As of December 31, 2013, the Company had $180.0 million available for additional borrowing under the 2012
Credit Facility. Cash on hand was $65.7 million as of December 31, 2013. We believe that our borrowing capacity under
the 2012 Credit Facility, together with the working capital, is sufficient to fund our ongoing operations and contractual
obligations. For further information on contractual obligations please see Item 5F.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
Cash flows (used in) operating activities decreased to ($0.6) million for the year ended December 31, 2012 from
($12.2) million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in cash flows used in operating activities is primarily
due to an increase in spot market rates and an increase in calendar days, offset by an increase of vessel operating expenses
due to an increase in operating days for the three vessels delivered in 2011 and due to operating days for Nordic Harrier
which was employed in the spot market from May 1, 2011.
Cash flows provided by investing activities increased to $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012
compared to cash flow (used) of ($81.8) million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Cash flows provided by investing
activities during 2012 consist primarily of loan repayment from the seller of Nordic Galaxy of $9.0 million offset by
vessel improvements of $2.8 million. Cash flows (used in) investing activities during 2011 consist primarily of payments
in connection with the delivery of the Nordic Breeze, the Nordic Aurora and the Nordic Zenith and payments in
connection with vessel upgrade of the Nordic Harrier.
Cash flows provided by financing activities decreased to $25.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012
compared to cash flow provided by financing activities of $100.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The
financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 consist of proceeds from our follow-on offering of $75.6
million, the net proceeds from the drawdown of $20.0 million under our 2005 Credit Facility less $63.5 million paid in
dividends and $6.1 million of credit facility costs paid. The financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011
represent net proceeds from a drawdown of $155.0 million under the 2005 Credit Facility less $54.3 million paid in
dividends.
As of December 31, 2012, we had $180.0 million available for additional borrowing under the 2012 Credit
Facility. Cash on hand was $55.5 million as of December 31, 2012.
C. Research and Development, Patents and Licenses, Etc.
Not applicable.
41
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 61 av 135
D. Trend Information
The oil tanker industry has been highly cyclical, experiencing volatility in charterhire rates and vessel values
resulting from changes in the supply of and demand for crude oil and tanker capacity. See Item 4. Information on the
Company – Business Overview – The 2013 Tanker Market.
E. Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.
F. Tabular Disclosure Of Contractual Obligations
The Company's contractual obligations as of December 31, 2013, consist of our obligations as borrower under
our 2012 Credit Facility and our deferred compensation agreement for our Chairman, President and CEO and our Chief
Financial Officer and EVP.
The following table sets out financial, commercial and other obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2013
(all figures in thousands of USD).
PART II
Contractual Obligations
2012 Credit Facility (1)
Interest Payments (2)
Commitment Fees (3)
Deferred Compensation Agreement (4)
Total
Total
250,000
34,883
8,142
12,191
305,216
Less than
1 year
1-3
years
3-5 years
More than
5 years
-
9,100
2,124
-
11,224
-
18,200
4,248
-
22,448
250,000
7,583
1,770
-
259,353
-
-
-
12,191
12,191
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Refers to obligation to repay indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2013.
Refers to estimated interest payments over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2013.
Estimate based on applicable interest rate and drawn amount as of December 31, 2013.
Refers to estimated commitment fees over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2013.
Estimate based on applicable commitment fee and drawn amount as of December 31, 2013.
Refers to estimated deferred compensation agreements payable to the Company's CEO and CFO as of
December 31, 2013.
The disclosed contractual obligations are based on estimates as of December 31, 2013. There may be uncertainties on the
future obligations related to interest and commitment fees, as the LIBOR rate and the drawn amount may fluctuate.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
We prepare our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, or U.S. GAAP. Following is a discussion of the accounting policies that involve a high degree of
judgment and the methods of their application. For a further description of our material accounting policies, please read
Item 18 – Financial Statements— Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.
Revenue and voyage expense
Revenues and voyage expenses are recognized on an accruals basis. Revenues are generated from spot charters
and cooperative arrangements.
Voyage revenues and voyage expenses are recognized ratably over the estimated length of each voyage and,
therefore, are allocated between reporting periods based on the relative transit time in each period. The impact of
recognizing voyage expenses ratably over the length of each voyage is not materially different on a quarterly and annual
basis from a method of recognizing such costs when incurred. Probable losses on voyages are provided for in full at the
time such losses can be estimated. Based on the terms of the customer agreement, a voyage is deemed to commence upon
the completion of discharge of the vessel's previous cargo and is deemed to end upon the completion of discharge of the
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 62 av 135
current cargo. However, we do not recognize revenue if a charter has not been contractually committed to by a customer
and the Company, even if the vessel has discharged its cargo and is sailing to the anticipated load port on its next voyage.
42
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 63 av 135
Spot Charters: Tankers operating in the spot market are typically chartered for a single voyage which may last
up to several weeks. Under a voyage charter revenue is generated from freight billing, as we are responsible for paying
voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. When our tankers are
operating on spot charters the vessels are traded fully at the risk and reward of the Company. For vessels operating in the
spot market other than through the pool (described below under "Cooperative arrangement"), the vessels will be operated
by the pool manager. Under this type of employment, the vessel's revenues are not included in the profit sharing of the
participating vessels in the pool. We consider it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the
Statements of Operations. See note 2 to our audited financial statements for further information concerning our
accounting policies.
Cooperative arrangement: The pool manager of the cooperative arrangements has the responsibility for the
commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker
(fuel oil) for the vessels. Revenue is generated from freight billing, as the pool manager is responsible for paying voyage
expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. The pool manager employs the
vessels in the pool under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or
contract of carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. Each participant in the pool
shall, in relation to each of its vessels, maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and to defined technical and
operational standards and obtain and maintain the required number of vettings. The owners of the participating vessels
remain responsible for the technical costs including crewing, insurance, repair and maintenance, financing and technical
management of their vessels. The revenues, less voyage expenses, or net pool earnings of all of the vessels are aggregated
and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the period.
From November 2011 and through November 5, 2012, the date on which Frontline completed the withdrawal of
all of its vessel from the Orion Tankers pool, we have considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a
net basis in its Statements of Operations. Effective November 5, 2012 we have considered it appropriate to present this
type of arrangement on a gross basis in our Statement of Operations. See Note 2 to our audited financial statements.
Long-lived assets
A significant part of the Company's total assets consists of our vessels. The oil tanker market is highly cyclical.
The useful lives of our vessels are principally dependent on the technical condition of our vessels.
Vessels are stated at their historical cost, which consists of the contracted purchase price and any direct expenses
incurred upon acquisition (including improvements, on site supervision expenses incurred during the construction period,
commissions paid, delivery expenses and other expenditures to prepare the vessel for its initial voyage) less accumulated
depreciation. Financing costs incurred during the construction period of the vessels are also capitalized and included into
each vessel's cost based on the weighted average method. Certain subsequent expenditures for conversions and major
improvements are also capitalized if it is determined that they appreciably extend the life, increase the earning capacity or
improve the efficiency or safety of the vessel. Depreciation is calculated based on cost less estimated residual value, and is
provided over the estimated useful life of the related assets using the straight-line method. The estimated useful life of a
vessel is 25 years from the date the vessel is delivered from the shipyard. Repairs and maintenance are expensed as
incurred.
Management uses considerable judgment when establishing the depreciable lives of our vessels. In order to
estimate useful lives of our vessels, Management must make assumptions about future market conditions in the oil tanker
market. We consider the establishment of depreciable lives to be a critical accounting estimate.
We are not aware of any regulatory changes or environmental liabilities that we anticipate will have a material
impact on our current or future operations.
43
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 64 av 135
Drydocking
The Company's vessels are required to be drydocked approximately every 30 to 60 months. The Company
capitalizes a substantial portion of the costs incurred during drydocking and amortizes those costs on a straight-line basis
from the completion of a drydocking or intermediate survey to the estimated completion of the next drydocking.
Drydocking costs include a variety of costs incurred while vessels are placed within drydock, including expenses related
to the in dock preparation and port expenses at the drydock shipyard, general shipyard expenses, expenses related to hull,
external surfaces and decks, expenses related to machinery and engines of the vessel, as well as expenses related to the
testing and correction of findings related to safety equipment on board. Consistent with prior periods, the Company
includes in capitalized drydocking those costs incurred as part of the drydock to meet classification and regulatory
requirements. The Company expenses costs related to routine repairs and maintenance performed during drydocking, and
for annual class survey costs. Ballast tank improvements are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis over a
period of eight years. The capitalized and unamortized drydocking costs are included in the book value of the vessels.
Amortization expense of the drydocking costs is included in depreciation expense.
If we change our estimate of the next drydock date, we will adjust our annual amortization of drydocking
expenditures accordingly.
Vessel Impairment
The carrying values of the Company's vessels may not represent their fair value at any point in time since the
market prices of second-hand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of newbuildings.
Historically, both charter rates and vessel values tend to be cyclical. Our vessels are evaluated for possible impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. If the
estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of the vessel and its eventual disposition is less
than the carrying amount of the vessel, the vessel is deemed impaired. Impairment charges may be limited to each
individual vessels or be based on a portfolio approach. In 2012, we recognized impairment charges on one vessel using an
individual approach. There was no impairment on vessels in 2013 and 2011. The amount of the impairment is measured
as the difference between the carrying value and the estimated fair value of the vessel. This assessment is made at the
individual vessel level as separately identifiable cash flow information for each vessel is available.
In developing estimates of future undiscounted cash flows, we make assumptions and estimates about the vessels'
future performance, with the significant assumptions being related to charter rates, fleet utilization, operating expenses,
capital expenditures, residual value and the estimated remaining useful life of each vessel. The assumptions used to
develop estimates of future undiscounted cash flows are based on historical trends as well as future expectations. The
estimated net operating cash flows are determined by considering an estimated daily time charter equivalent for the
remaining operating days. We estimate the daily time charter equivalent for the remaining operating days utilizing fifteen
year historical average spot market rates for similar vessels over the remaining estimated life of the vessel, assumed to be
25 years from the delivery of the vessel from the shipyard, net of brokerage commissions, expected outflows for vessels'
maintenance and vessel operating expenses (including planned drydocking expenditures). The salvage value used in the
impairment test is estimated to be $9.7 million per vessel. If our estimate of undiscounted future cash flows for any vessel
is lower than the vessel's carrying value, the carrying value is written down, by recording a charge to operations, to the
vessel's fair market value if the fair market value is lower than the vessel's carrying value. Fair market value is calculated
based on estimated discounted operating cashflow. Although we believe that the assumptions used to evaluate potential
impairment are reasonable and appropriate, such assumptions are highly subjective. There can be no assurance as to how
long charter rates and vessel values will remain at their currently low levels or whether they will improve by any
significant degree.
Estimated outflows for operating expenses and drydocking requirements are based on historical and budgeted
costs. Finally, utilization is based on historical levels achieved.
During the fourth quarter 2012, we identified one vessel where we believed that future undiscounted cash flows
for the vessel were less than the carrying value and therefore not fully recoverable. The impairment loss of $12.0 million
which was recorded was equal to the difference between the asset's carrying value and estimated fair value.
44
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 65 av 135
The Total Fleet – Comparison of Carrying Value versus Market Value: During the past six years, the market
values of vessels have experienced particular volatility, with substantial declines in many vessel classes. There are few
transactions in the second hand market for Suezmax tankers. According to Clarkson Ltd. 68 Suezmax tankers were sold
and bought in total during 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. We believe that the NAT fleet should be valued as a
transportation system as it is not meaningful under our strategy to assess the value of each individual vessel.
Factors and conditions which could impact our estimates of future cash flows of our vessels include:
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
(cid:4)
Declines in prevailing market charter rates;
Changes in behaviors and attitudes of our charterers towards actual and preferred technical, operational
and environmental standards; and
Changes in regulations over the requirements for the technical and environmental capabilities of our
vessels.
Our estimates of market value assume that our vessels are all in good and seaworthy condition without need for
repair and, if inspected, would be certified in class without notations of any kind, and are held for use. Our estimates are
based on the estimated market values for our vessels that we have received from shipbrokers and these are inherently
uncertain. The market value of a vessel as determined by shipbrokers could be an arbitrary assessment giving an estimate
of a value for a transaction that has not taken place. There is very low liquidity in the secondhand market for our type of
vessels. The valuation of the Company in the stock market should not be based upon net asset value (NAV), a measure
that only is linked to the steel value of our ships. NAT has its own ongoing system value with a homogenous fleet. Based
on our unique business model an alternative method to measure the value of our fleet is the implied value expressed by the
stock price.
45
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 66 av 135
The table set forth below indicates (i) The rates used for the period, (ii) The break even rate and (iii) actual rates.
($ per day)
NAT fleet
Rates used (1)
Second
year
First year
17,370
14,438
Break even
rate (2)
Actual Rates (3)
Thereafter
29,521
2013
25,273
2013
11,100
2009-
2013
17,188
1. We use an average estimated day rate provided by Marex Spectron for the first and second year, and the
average 15 year Suezmax Earnings Trend from Clarkson for the years thereafter. Both are adjusted for
average achieved TCE rate for NAT.
2. The break even rate is the lowest rate used instead of the rates described in (1) which would result in the
undiscounted cash flow not recovering the book value.
3. Actual rates are the trailing average day rate achieved by NAT for 2013 and the five year period 2009-2013.
If trailing five year average historical rates had been used in the cash flow forecast, the carrying value of all of
our vessels would have been impaired. Using the trailing one year average rates in the cash flow forecast, would have
resulted in the carrying value for each of our vessels not being recovered.
The table set forth below indicates (i) the carrying value of each of our vessels as of December 31, 2013, (ii)
which of those vessels we believe has a market value, based on shipbrokers reports, below its carrying value, and (iii) the
aggregate difference between carrying value and market value represented by such vessels.
Vessel
Nordic Harrier*
Nordic Hawk *
Nordic Hunter*
Nordic Voyager*
Nordic Freedom*
Nordic Fighter*
Nordic Discovery*
Nordic Saturn*
Nordic Jupiter*
Nordic Apollo*
Nordic Moon*
Nordic Cosmos*
Nordic Sprite*
Nordic Grace*
Nordic Mistral*
Nordic Passat*
Nordic Vega*
Nordic Breeze*
Nordic Aurora*
Nordic Zenith*
Built
1997
1997
1997
1997
2005
1998
1998
1998
1998
2003
2002
2003
1999
2002
2002
2002
2010
2011
1999
2011
Deadweight
Tons
151,459
151,475
151,401
149,591
159,331
153,328
153,328
157,331
157,411
159,998
160,305
159,999
147,188
149,921
164,236
164,274
163,940
158,597
147,262
158,645
Delivered to NAT
August 1997
October 1997
December 1997
November 2004
March 2005
March 2005
August 2005
November 2005
April 2006
November 2006
November 2006
December 2006
February 2009
July 2009
November 2009
March 2010
December 2010
August 2011
September 2011
November 2011
Carrying
Value
$ millions
27.8
31.1
29.0
25.0
55.1
40.3
43.4
42.0
43.8
58.5
57.4
59.1
41.8
45.7
41.8
43.4
80.2
61.5
22.5
62.0
*Indicates vessel for which we believe that the carrying value of the vessel exceeds the market value, based on uncertain
estimates by shipbrokers as of December 31, 2013. We believe that the aggregate carrying value of our vessels exceeds
their aggregate market value by approximately $436.0 million.
Goodwill
We allocate the cost of acquired companies to the fair value of identifiable tangible and intangible assets and liabilities
acquired, with the remaining amount being classified as goodwill. Our future operating performance may be affected by
the potential impairment charges related to goodwill. Accordingly, the allocation of the purchase price to goodwill may
affect our future operating results. Goodwill is not amortized, but reviewed for impairment annually, or more frequently if
impairment indicators arise. The process of evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill is subjective and requires
significant judgment at many points during the analysis.
46
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 67 av 135
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 68 av 135
The allocation of the purchase price of acquired companies requires management to make significant estimates
and assumptions, including estimates of future cash flows expected to be generated by the acquired assets and the
appropriate discount rate to value these cash flows. In addition, the process of evaluating the potential impairment of
goodwill is subjective and requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis. The evaluation has been
performed in accordance with ASC 350-20-35
As of December 31, 2013, we had one reporting unit with goodwill attributable to it.
As of the date of this Annual Report, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the goodwill might be
impaired within the next year. However, certain factors that impact our goodwill impairment tests are inherently difficult
to forecast and as such we cannot provide any assurances that an impairment will or will not occur in the future. An
assessment for impairment involves a number of assumptions and estimates that are based on factors that are beyond our
control. Please read "Part I—Forward-Looking Statements."
RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
There are no recent pronouncements issued whose adoption would have a material impact on the Company's consolidated
financial statements in the current year or are expected to have a material impact on future years.
ITEM 6.
DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES
A. Directors And Senior Management
Directors and Senior Management of the Company and the Manager
Pursuant to the Management Agreement with Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the Manager, the Manager
provides administrative, commercial and operational services to us for the fiscal year ended 2013. The Manager was
owned by a company controlled by Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and his family. The
Manager may engage in business activities other than with respect to the Company. Effective January 10, 2013, the
Company acquired 100% of the Manager which is now a consolidated subsidiary. See Item 4—Information on the
Company—Business Overview— The Management Agreement.
Set forth below are the names and positions of the directors of the Company and senior management of the
Company and the Manager. The directors of the Company are elected annually, and each director elected holds office until
a successor is elected. Officers of both the Company and the Manager are elected from time to time by vote of the
respective Board of Directors and hold office until a successor is elected.
The Company
Name
Herbjørn Hansson
Andreas Ove Ugland
Jan Erik Langangen
James Gibbons
Richard H. K. Vietor
Jim Kelly
Turid M. Sørensen
Age
66
59
63
49
68
60
53
Position
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Vice Chairman, Director and Audit Committee Chairman
Executive Vice President–Business Development and Legal and Director
Director
Director
Director and Audit Committee Member
Chief Financial Officer & EVP
47
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 69 av 135
Name
Herbjørn Hansson
Frithjof Bettum
Jan Halvard Aas Møller
Rolf Amundsen
Marianne Lie
John G. Bernander
* part time
The Manager
Age
66
52
29
69
52
56
Position
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Senior Vice President Technical Operations
Financial Manager
Advisor *
Advisor *
Advisor *
Certain biographical information with respect to each director and senior management of the Company and the
Manager listed above is set forth below.
Herbjørn Hansson earned his M.B.A. at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration and
Harvard Business School. In 1974 he was employed by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association. In the period from 1975
to 1980, he was Chief Economist and Research Manager of INTERTANKO, an industry association whose members
control about 70% of the world's independently owned tanker fleet, excluding state owned and oil company fleets. During
the 1980s, he was Chief Financial Officer of Kosmos/Anders Jahre, at the time one of the largest Norwegian based
shipping and industry groups. In 1989, Mr. Hansson founded Ugland Nordic Shipping AS, or UNS, which became one of
the world's largest owners of specialized shuttle tankers. He served as Chairman in the first phase and as Chief Executive
Officer as from 1993 to 2001 when UNS, under his management, was sold to Teekay Shipping Corporation, or Teekay,
for an enterprise value of $780.0 million. He continued to work with Teekay, recently as Vice Chairman of Teekay
Norway AS, until he started working full-time for the Company on September 1, 2004. Mr. Hansson is the founder and
has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since its establishment in 1995. He also has been a
member of various governing bodies of companies within shipping, insurance, banking, manufacturing,
national/international shipping agencies including classification societies and protection and indemnity associations. Mr.
Hansson is fluent in Norwegian and English, and has a command of German and French for conversational purposes.
Andreas Ove Ugland has been a director of the Company since 1997. Mr. Ugland has also served as director
and Chairman of Ugland International Holding plc, a shipping/transport company listed on the London Stock Exchange;
Andreas Ugland & Sons AS, Grimstad, Norway, Høegh Ugland Autoliners AS, Oslo and Buld Associates Inc., Bermuda.
Mr. Ugland has spent his whole career in shipping in the Ugland family owned shipping group. Mr. Ugland is Chairman
of our Audit Committee.
Jan Erik Langangen has been a director of the Company since June 2010. Mr. Langangen was the Executive
Vice President, Business Development and Legal, of the Manager from November 2004 until September 2010. From
October 2010 Mr. Langangen is employed by the Company. Mr. Langangen previously served as the Chief Financial
Officer from 1979 to 1983, and as Chairman of the Board from 1987 to 1992, of Statoil, an oil and gas company that is
controlled by the Norwegian government and that is the largest company in Scandinavia. He also served as Chief
Executive Officer of UNI Storebrand from 1985 to 1992. Mr. Langangen was also Chairman of the Board of the
Norwegian Governmental Value Commission from 1998 to 2001, being appointed by the Norwegian Prime Minister. Mr.
Langangen is a partner of Langangen & Helset, a Norwegian law firm and previously was a partner of the law firm
Langangen & Engesæth from 1996 to 2000 and of the law firm Thune & Co. from 1994 to 1996. Mr. Langangen received
a Masters of Economics from The Norwegian School of Business Administration and his law degree from the University
of Oslo.
James Gibbons has been a director of the Company since September 2013. Mr. Gibbons was educated at
Harrow School, England and received a BSBA in Finance from Georgetown University in 1985. Mr. Gibbons has worked
as a registered representative for Prudential Bache Securities 1985-1986, as a Director of Gibbons Management Services
Limited from 1986-1989, as Managing Director of Gibbons Deposit Company Limited from 1989-1999, as President and
CEO of CAPITAL G Limited from 1999 – 2010 Chairman of Capital G Bank Limited 1999 - 2013 and is currently
Treasurer of Edmund Gibbons Limited, the Chairman of Harbour International Trust Company Limited, a Director of
Capital G Bank Limited and President of Bermuda Air Conditioning Limited. Mr. Gibbons is an Independent Director of
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd and other Boards, and was a member of Bermuda Government's Council of Economic
Advisors, The Waterfront Task Force, and Monetary Advisory Committee, the Mayor's Commission on the Future of the
City of Hamilton and Public Funds Investment Committee. Mr. Gibbons is currently a member of Youthnet's Advisory
Board and an Honorary Trustee of the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute.
48
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 70 av 135
Richard H. K. Vietor has been a director of the Company since July 2007. Mr. Vietor is the Paul Whiton
Cherrington Professor of Business Administration where he teaches courses on the regulation of business and the
international political economy. He was appointed Professor in 1984. Before coming to Harvard Business School in
1978, Professor Vietor held faculty appointments at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the University of Missouri. He
received a B.A. in economics from Union College in 1967, an M.A. in history from Hofstra University in 1971, and a
Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1975.
Jim Kelly has been a director of the Company since June 2010. Mr. Kelly has worked for Time Inc., the world's
largest magazine publisher, since 1978. He served as Foreign Editor during the fall of the Soviet Union and the first Gulf
War, and was named Deputy Managing Editor in 1996. In 2001, Mr. Kelly became the magazine's managing editor, and
during his tenure the magazine won a record four National Magazine awards. In 2004, Time Magazine received its first
EMMA for its contribution to the ABC News Series "Iraq: Where Things Stand." In late 2006, Mr. Kelly became the
managing editor of all of Time Inc., helping supervise the work of more than 2,000 journalists working at 125 titles,
including Fortune, Money, Sports Illustrated and People. Since 2009, Mr. Kelly has worked as a consultant at Bloomberg
LP and taught at Princeton and Columbia Universities. Jim Kelly was elected as member of our Audit Committee in
February, 2012.
Turid M. Sørensen was appointed Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer June 1, 2012. She
previously served as Chief Financial Officer from February 6, 2006. Ms. Sørensen has a Bachelor's Degree in Business
Administration from the Norwegian School of Management, a M.B.A. in Management Control from the Norwegian
School of Economics and Business Administration and Advanced Management Program from Harvard Business School.
She has 29 years of experience in the shipping industry. During the period from 1984 to 1987, she worked for Anders
Jahre AS and Kosmos AS in Norway and held various positions within accounting and information technology. In the
period from 1987 to 1995, Ms. Sørensen was Manager of Accounting and IT for Skaugen PetroTrans Inc., in Houston,
Texas. After returning to Norway she was employed by Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA and Teekay Norway AS as Vice
President, Accounting. From October 2004 until her appointment as Chief Financial Officer in February 2006, she served
as our Treasurer and Controller. In June 2012, she became Chief Financial Officer & EVP.
Frithjof Bettum was appointed Senior Vice President—Technical Operations & Chartering of the Manager on
October 1, 2005. Mr. Bettum has a Mechanical Engineering degree from Vestfold University College. Mr. Bettum has 25
years of experience in the shipping and the offshore business. From 1984 to 1992, Mr. Bettum was employed by Allum
Engineering AS in Sandefjord, Norway where he served as project manager. At Allum Engineering AS Mr. Bettum
worked on projects in the areas of engineering, the new building and conversion management of shuttle tankers, Floating
Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO), semi-submersible drilling units and the shore based manufacturer industry.
From 1993 to 2001, Mr. Bettum was employed by Nordic American Shipping AS (which later became Ugland Nordic
Shipping ASA) where he served as Technical Director in Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA and President of Ugland Stena
Storage AS. In 2004, Mr. Bettum joined Teekay Norway AS as Director Offshore where he was responsible for business
development, the daily operations of the company and the conversion of shuttle tankers and offshore units.
Jan Halvard Aas Møller was appointed Financial Manager of the Manager on June 1, 2013. Mr. Møller has a
Master's Degree in Audit and Accounting from the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, and is
a State Authorized Public Accountant. From 2006 to he was hired by the Company Mr. Møller was employed by KPMG
as an auditor and consultant and worked in both capacities with several companies listed both in Europe and the United
States.
Rolf Amundsen was appointed Advisor to the Chairman in February 2013. He previously served as Chief
Investor Relations Officer and Advisor to the Chairman from February 6, 2006. He has also served as our Chief Financial
Officer from June 2004 until February 2006. Mr. Amundsen has an M.B.A. in economics and business administration, and
his entire career has been in international banking. Previously, Mr. Amundsen has served as the President of the Financial
Analysts' Society in Norway. Mr. Amundsen served as the chief executive officer of a Nordic investment bank for many
years, where he established a large operation for the syndication of international shipping investments.
Marianne Lie was appointed Advisor to the Chairman in June 2009. Having broad international experience,
Marianne Lie has been and still is a board member of several Norwegian companies mainly within the shipping, offshore
business, energy and finance industries. She is a member of the shareholders Committee of the Central Bank of Norway.
She was in the Norwegian Shipowners Association from 1988 until 1998, after which she was managing director of the
Norwegian Branch of Vattenfall, a Swedish based energy group. Ms. Lie was also a board member of the Finnish energy
group Fortum. She was managing director of the Norwegian Shipowners Association from 2002 to 2008. Ms. Lie has
studied law and political science at the University of Oslo.
49
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 71 av 135
John G. Bernander was appointed Advisor to the Chairman in June 2012. After some years as a practicing
lawyer and corporate counsel for companies such Johan G Olsen Industrier AS and the regional bank Sørlandsbanken AS
he has been engaged in politics both on the regional and national scene. He is a former Member of Parliament, Deputy
Minister of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the City Council of Kristiansand. From 1991 to 1994 he was the
Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party. After leaving active politics he has held a number of positions in Norwegian
commercial life, most notably as CEO of the Gard P&I Club and Gard Services AS (1993 to 2001), CEO and Editor in
Chief of the Norwegian Broadcasting Company, NRK (2001 to 2007) and until recently CEO of the Norwegian
Federation of Enterprises, NHO (2009 to 2012) Norway.
B. Compensation
2011 Equity Incentive Plan
In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a new incentive plan under which a maximum of 400,000 common
shares were reserved for issuance. A total of 400,000 restricted common shares that are subject to vesting were allocated
among 23 persons employed in the management of the Company, the Manager and the members of the Board. The vesting
period is four-year cliff vesting period for 326,000 shares and five-year cliff vesting period for 74,000 shares, that is, none
of these shares may be sold during the first four or five years after grant, as applicable, and the shares are forfeited if the
grantee discontinues to work for the Company before that time. The holders of the restricted shares are entitled to voting
rights as well as receive dividends paid during the vesting period. The Board considers this arrangement to be in the best
interests of the Company.
In 2012, the Company repurchased at par value, 8,500 unvested restricted common shares and these restricted
common shares are held as treasury shares. As of December 31, 2012, a total number of 391,500 unvested restricted
common shares were allocated among 21 persons employed in the management of the Company, the Manager and the
members of the Board of Directors.
On January 10, 2013, the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The Board of Directors
amended the vesting requirements for the 174,000 shares allocated to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan
and the vesting requirements were lifted.
In 2013, the Company repurchased at par value, 14,500 unvested restricted common shares and these restricted
common shares are held as treasury shares. As of December 31, 2013, a total number of 203,000 unvested restricted
common shares were allocated among 17 employees.
A copy of the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan is filed as Exhibit 4.14 to the Company's annual report on Form 20-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
Compensation of Directors
The five directors received, in the aggregate, $471,000 in cash fees for their services as directors for the year
ended December 31, 2013. The Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors received an additional annual cash compensation
of $10,000 in 2013. The members of the Audit Committee receive an additional annual cash retainer of $12,000 each per
year. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual cash compensation of $6,000 per year. We do
not pay director fees to the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. We do, however, reimburse all of our
directors for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with their services as members of our Board of
Directors.
Executive Pension Plan
50
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 72 av 135
Our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer & EVP have individual
deferred compensation agreements. The Chief Executive Officer has served in his present position since the inception of
the Company in 1995. Please see Note 6 to the audited financial statements for further information about the agreements.
Employment Agreements
As of December 31, 2013 we have employment agreements with Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman, President &
Chief Executive Officer, Turid M. Sørensen, our Chief Financial Officer & EVP, Rolf I. Amundsen, Advisor to the
Chairman and Jan Erik Langangen, our Executive Vice President, Business Development & Legal. Mr. Hansson does not
receive any additional compensation for his services as a director or Chairman of the Board. The aggregate compensation
of our executive officers during the year ended December 31, 2013 was approximately $2.5 million.
C. Board Practices
The members of the Company's Board of Directors serve until the next annual general meeting following his or
her election to the board. The members of the current Board of Directors were elected at the annual general meeting held
in 2013. The Company's Board of Directors has established an Audit Committee, consisting of two independent directors,
Mr. Ugland and Mr. Gibbons for the year ended December 2011. In February 2012, the Audit Committee was expanded
by one member when Mr. Kelly was elected. Sir David Gibbons resigned from the Audit Committee in 2013, and the
Committee now consists of Mr. Ugland and Mr. Kelly. Mr. Ugland serves as the audit committee financial expert. The
members of the Audit Committee received during 2013, additional remuneration of $30,000 in aggregate for serving on
the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee provides assistance to the Company's Board of Directors in fulfilling their
responsibility to shareholders, and investment community relating to corporate accounting, reporting practices of the
Company, and the quality and integrity of the financial reports of the Company. The Audit Committee, among other
duties, recommends to the Company's Board of Directors the independent auditors to be selected to audit the financial
statements of the Company; meets with the independent auditors and financial management of the Company to review the
scope of the proposed audit for the current year and the audit procedures to be utilized; reviews with the independent
auditors, and financial and accounting personnel, the adequacy and effectiveness of the accounting and financial controls
of the Company; and reviews the financial statements contained in the annual report to shareholders with management and
the independent auditors.
Pursuant to an exemption for foreign private issuers, we are not required to comply with many of the corporate
governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange that are applicable to U.S. listed companies, for more
information, see Item 16G – Corporate Governance.
There are no contracts between us and any of our directors providing for benefits upon termination of their
employment.
D. Employees
As at December 31, 2013, NAT had two full-time employees and 2 part-time employees. The Group had a total
of 21 full time employees.
E. Share Ownership
With respect to the total amount of common stock owned by all of our officers and directors individually and as a
group, see Item 7. "Major Stockholders and Related Party Transactions."
51
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1000177/000091957414002516/d1458032_2...
10.04.2014
d1458032_20-f.htm
Side 73 av 135
ITEM 7.
MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
A. Major Shareholders
The following table sets forth information regarding the larges beneficial owners of our common shares and of
our officers and directors as a group as of April 4, 2014. All of the shareholders, including the shareholders listed in this
table, are entitled to one vote for each common stock held.
Continue reading text version or see original annual report in PDF format above