Notes:

Consistent with general practice in the shipping industry, the Company uses time charter equivalent revenue, or TCE, which represents operating revenues less finance lease interest income, other income and voyage expenses, as a measure to compare revenue generated from a voyage charter to revenue generated from a time charter. Time charter equivalent revenue, a non-GAAP measure, provides additional meaningful information in conjunction with operating revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, because it assists Company management in making decisions regarding the deployment and use of its vessels and in evaluating the Company's financial performance.

We are engaged in the seaborne transportation of crude oil and oil products. The following summarizes the risks that may materially affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Historically, the tanker industry has been highly cyclical, with volatility in profitability, charter rates and asset values resulting from changes in the supply of, and demand for, tanker capacity and changes in the supply of and demand for oil and oil products. These factors may adversely affect the rates payable and the amounts we receive in respect of our vessels. Our ability to re-charter our vessels on the expiration or termination of their current spot and time charters and the charter rates payable under any renewal or replacement charters will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the tanker market and we cannot guarantee that any renewal or replacement charters we enter into will be sufficient to allow us to operate our vessels profitably.

The factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:

The factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

In addition to the prevailing and anticipated freight rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to scrap prices, costs of bunkers and other operating costs, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance costs, insurance coverage costs, the efficiency and age profile of the existing tanker fleet. 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, including those discussed above. Market conditions were volatile in 20182019 and continued volatility may reduce demand for transportation of oil over longer distances and increase the supply of tankers to carry that oil, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and existing contractual obligations.

The demand for our oil tankers derives primarily from demand for Arabian Gulf, West African, North Sea, Caribbean, Russian and CaribbeanUS Shale 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:

In addition, volatile 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.

In recent years, shipyards have produced a large number of new tankers. If the capacity of new vessels delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and converted to non-trading tankers, tanker capacity will increase. If the supply of tanker capacity increases and 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, our ability to pay dividends and our compliance with current or future covenants in any of our agreements.

A significant portion of our earnings are related to the oil industry. A shift in the consumer demand from oil towards other energy resources such as wind energy, solar energy, or water energy will potentially affect the demand for our tankers. This could have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Seaborne trading and distribution patterns are primarily influenced by the relative advantage of the various sources of production, locations of consumption, pricing differentials and seasonality. Changes to the trade patterns of crude oil or refined oil products may have a significant negative or positive impact on the ton-mile and therefore the demand for our tankers. This could have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

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

Our customers, in particular those in the oil industry, have a high and increasing focus on quality and compliance standards with their suppliers across the entire supply chain, including the shipping and transportation segment. Our continued compliance with these standards and quality requirements is vital for our operations. The charterhire rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy and the ability to load and discharge cargo quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new tankers are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charterhire payments we receive for our vessels and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. This could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

The operation of an ocean-going vessel carries inherent risks. These risks include the possibility of:

Our ability to secure funding is dependent on well-functioning capital markets and on an appetite to provide funding to the shipping industry. At present, capital markets are well-functioning and funding is available for the shipping industry. However, if global economic conditions worsen or lenders for any reason decide not to provide debt financing to us, we may not be able to secure

additional financing to the extent required, on acceptable terms or at all. If additional financing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our obligations as they come due, or we may be unable to enhance our existing business, complete additional vessel acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.

The world economy faces a number of challenges, including the effects of volatile oil prices, continuing turmoil and hostilities in the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, North Africa and other geographic areas and countries. If one or more of the major national or regional economies should weaken, there is a substantial risk that such a downturn will impact the world economy. 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. While market conditions have improved, continued adverse and developing economic and governmental factors, together with the concurrent volatility in charter rates and vessel values, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, and could cause the price of our ordinary shares to decline.

In Europe, large sovereign debts and fiscal deficits, low growth prospects and high unemployment rates in a number of countries have contributed to the rise of Eurosceptic parties, which would like their countries to leave the Euro. The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and potential new trade policies in the United States further increase the risk of additional trade protectionism. The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union following a referendum in June 2016, or Brexit, contributes to considerable uncertainty concerning the current and future economic environment. Brexit could adversely affect European or worldwide political, regulatory, economic or market conditions and could contribute to instability in global political institutions, regulatory agencies and financial markets. We believe that these effects of Brexit won’t materially affect our business,

Continued economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region, especially in China, may exacerbate the effect on us of the recent slowdown in the rest of the world. In recent history, China has 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, 2018,2019, however, is estimated to be around 6.6%6.1%, down from the growth rate of 6.9%6.6% for the year ended December 31, 2017.2018. China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region may continue to experience slowed or even negative economic growth in the future. 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.

Credit markets in the United States and Europe have in the past experienced significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity, and there is a risk that U.S. federal government and state governments and European authorities continue to implement a broad variety of governmental action and/or new regulation of the financial markets. Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile.

Further, governments may turn and have turned to trade barriers to protect their domestic industries against foreign imports, thereby depressing shipping demand. In particular, leaders in the United States and China have indicated the United States may seek to implement moreimplemented certain increasingly protective trade measures. President Trump was elected on a platform promoting trade protectionism. The results of the 2016 presidential election and the potential results of the upcoming 2020 presidential election in the United States have thus created significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the United States, China and other exporting countries, including with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs. For example, on January 23, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a global trade agreement intended to include the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru and a number of Asian countries. Inin March 2018, President Trump announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum into the United States that could have had a negative impact on international trade generally. Most recently,generally and in January 2019, the United States announced expanded sanctions against Venezuela, which may have had an effect on its oil output and in turn affectaffected global oil supply. There have also been continuing trade tensions, including significant tariff increases, between the United States and China. Protectionist developments, or the perception that they may occur, may have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions, and may significantly reduce global trade. Moreover, increasing trade protectionism may cause an increase in (a) the cost of goods exported from regions globally, (b) the length of time required to transport goods and (c) the risks associated with exporting goods. Such increases may significantly affect the quantity of goods to be shipped, shipping time schedules, voyage costs and other associated costs, which could have an adverse impact on our charterers’charterers' business, operating results and financial condition and could thereby affect their ability to make timely charter hire payments to us and to renew and increase the number of their time charters with us. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and financial condition.our ability to pay any cash distributions to our shareholders.

We face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates and instability in the banking and securities markets around the world, among other factors. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions will last. These recent and developing economic and governmental factors may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and may cause the price of our common shares to decline.

Prospective investors should consider the potential impact, uncertainty and risk associated with the development in the wider global economy. Further economic downturn in any of these countries could have a material effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

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. Sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea, with tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks. Acts of piracy could result in harm or danger to the crews that man our tankers. In addition, these piracy attacks occur in regions in which our vessels are deployed that insurers characterize as "war risk" zones or by the Joint War Committee as "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 on-board 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, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends and may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

Past terroristTerrorist attacks such as those in Paris on November 13, 2015, Manchester on May 22, 2017, and the frequent incidents of terrorism in the Middle East, and the continuing response of the United States and others to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks around the world, continuecontinues to cause uncertainty in the world’sworld's financial markets and may affect our business, operating results and financial condition. Continuing conflicts instability and other recent developments in the Middle East, including the armed conflicts in Syria and elsewhere,Yemen, and increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the presence of U.S. or other armed forces in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Syria,various other regions, 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. As a result of the above, insurers have increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our operating results, revenues and costs. Additionally, Brexit, or similar events in other jurisdictions, could impact global markets, including foreign exchange and securities markets; any resulting changes in currency exchange rates, tariffs, treaties and other regulatory matters could in turn adversely impact our business financial conditionand operations.

In January 2020, in response to certain perceived terrorist activity, the United States launched an airstrike in Baghdad that killed a high-ranking Iranian general, increasing hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. This attack or further escalations between the U.S. and Iran that may follow, could result in retaliation from Iran that could potentially affect the shipping industry, through increased attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz (which already experienced an increased number of attacks on and seizures of vessels in 2019), or by potentially closing off or limiting access to the Strait of Hormuz, where a significant portion of the world's oil supply passes through. Any restriction on access to the Strait of Hormuz, or increased attacks on vessels in the area, could negatively impact our earnings, cash flow and results of operations.

From time to time on charterers' instructions, our vessels may call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. In the past, certain of our vessels have made port calls to Iran and six of our vessels made six port calls in total to Iran during 2018. 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 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 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 included, 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. The JPOA was subsequently extended twice.

On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 and the EU announced that they reached a landmark agreement with Iran titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program, or JCPOA, which is intended to significantly restrict Iran’s ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons for 10 years while simultaneously easing sanctions directed toward non-U.S. persons for conduct involving Iran, but taking place outside of U.S. jurisdiction and does not involve U.S. persons. On January 16, 2016, or Implementation Day, the United States joined the EU and the UN in lifting a significant number of their nuclear-related sanctions on Iran following an announcement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that Iran had satisfied its respective obligations under the JCPOA.

U.S. sanctions prohibiting certain conduct that was permitted under the JCPOA were not actually repealed or permanently terminated. Rather, the U.S. government implemented changes to the sanctions regime by: (1) issuing waivers of certain statutory sanctions provisions; (2) committing to refrain from exercising certain discretionary sanctions authorities; (3) removing certain individuals and entities from OFAC's sanctions lists; and (4) revoking certain Executive Orders and specified sections of Executive Orders. These sanctions were not to be permanently "lifted" until the earlier of “Transition Day,” set to occur on October 20, 2023, or upon a report from the IAEA stating that all nuclear material in Iran is being used for peaceful activities. On October 13, 2017, President Trump announced that he would not certify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA. This did not withdraw the U.S. from the JCPOA or reinstate any sanctions. On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced his decision to cease U.S. participation in the JCPOA and to reimpose the U.S. nuclear-related sanctions that were previously lifted, following two wind-

Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact 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. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. 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.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be certified as being "in class" by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention.

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel's machinery may be placed on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. We expect our vessels to be on special survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be dry dockeddrydocked every two and a half to five years for inspection of its underwater parts.

Compliance with the above requirements may result in significant expense. If any vessel does not maintain its class or fails any annual, intermediate or special survey, the vessel will be unable to trade between ports and will be unemployable, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and 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 in U.S. waters, including the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States.  An oil spill could also result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other international and U.S. Federal, state and local laws, as well as third-partythird party damages, including punitive damages, and could harm our reputation with current or potential charterers of our tankers.  We will be required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents.  Although our technical manager will arrange for insurance to cover our vessels with respect to 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, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the IMO's International Safety Management Code, for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code. The ISM Code requires shipowners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes 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, including the invalidation of existing insurance or a decrease of available insurance coverage for our affected vessels and such failure may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The IMO has imposed updated guidelines for ballast water management systems specifying the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged from a vessel’s ballast water. Depending on the date of the IOPP renewal survey, existing vessels constructed before September 8, 2017 must comply with the updated D-2 standard on or after September 8, 2019. For most vessels, compliance with the D-2 standard will involve installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Ships constructed on or after September 8, 2017 are to comply with the D-2 standards on or after September 8, 2017. We currently have 18 vessels that do not comply with the updated guideline asAs of December 31, 20182019, we have 13 vessels that require upgrading in order to be compliant following their IOPP renewal survey and costs of compliance may be substantial and adversely affect our revenues and profitability. As of December 31, 2019 the Company has incurred $9.6 million of costs in relation to the supply and installation of on-board ballast water treatments systems, or BWTS. As of December 31, 2019 the Company has committed to the purchase of BWTS equipment on a further eight vessels with a remaining financial commitment of $2.9 million excluding installation costs.

Furthermore, United States regulations are currently changing. Although the 2013 Vessel General Permit, or VGP program and the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, are currently in effect to regulate ballast discharge, exchange and installation, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, which was signed into law on December 4, 2018, requires that the EPA develop national standards of performance for approximately 30 discharges, similar to those found in the VGP within two years. By approximately 2022, the U.S. Coast Guard must develop corresponding implementation, compliance and enforcement regulations regarding ballast water within two years.water. The new regulations could require the installation of new equipment, which may cause us to incur substantial costs.

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"

"arresting" or "attaching" a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could result in a significant loss of earnings for the related off-hire period.

In addition, in jurisdictions where the "sister ship" theory of liability applies, such as South Africa, a claimant may arrest 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. In countries with "sister ship" liability laws, claims might be asserted against us or any of our vessels for liabilities of other vessels that we own.

A government of a vessel's registry could requisition for title or seize one or more of our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. A government could also requisition one or more of our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

As of December 31, 2018, 502019, 56 of the 5163 vessels, which are owned, leased or chartered-in by us, were employed in the spot market or on short-term or variable rate time charters, and we are therefore exposed to fluctuations in spot market charter rates. Historically, the tanker market has been volatile as a result of the many conditions and factors that can affect the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. The spot market may fluctuate significantly based upon supply and demand of vessels and cargoes. The successful operation of our vessels in the competitive spot market depends upon, among other things, obtaining profitable charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent in ballast. 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 market rates decline, then we may be unable to operate our vessels trading in the spot market profitably, meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness, or to pay dividends in the future. Furthermore, as charter rates in the spot market are fixed for a single voyage, which may last up to several weeks, during periods in which charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing

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, or 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.

We have entered into various contracts, including charter parties with our customers, which subject us to counterparty risks. The ability of each of the counterparties to perform its obligations under a contract with us or contracts entered into on our behalf 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 shipping sector, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, charter rates received for tankers and the supply and demand for commodities. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under any such contracts, we could sustain significant losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay dividends.

Often, when we enter into a time charter, the rates under that charter are fixed for the term of the charter.  If the spot market rates or short-term time charter rates in the tanker industry become significantly lower than the time charter equivalent rates that some of our charterers are obligated to pay us under our existing charters, the charterers may have incentive to default under that charter or attempt to renegotiate the charter. If our charterers fail to pay their obligations, we would have to attempt to re-charter our vessels, which if re-chartered at lower rates, may affect our ability to operate our vessels profitably and may affect our ability to comply with current or future covenants contained in our loan agreements.

Further, if the charterer of a vessel in our fleet that is used as collateral under any loan agreement enters into default on its charter obligations to us, such default may constitute an event of default under such loan agreement, which could allow the bank to exercise

remedies under the loan agreement. If our charterers fail to meet their obligations to us or attempt to renegotiate our charter agreements, we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, as well as our ability to pay dividends, if any, in the future, and compliance with current or future covenants in our loan agreements.

For vessels on voyage charters, fuel oil, or bunkers, is a significant, if not the largest, expense. Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability to the extent we have vessels on voyage charters. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Any future increase in the cost of fuel may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

The operation of tankers has unique operational risks associated with the transportation of oil.  An oil spill may cause significant environmental damage, and a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available. 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.

Further, 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 and market disruptions, delay or rerouting.

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs that our insurance does not cover at all or in full. The loss of revenues while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, may adversely affect our business

Even following a physical inspection of secondhand vessels prior to purchase, we do not have the same knowledge about their condition and cost of any required (or anticipated) repairs that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. Accordingly, we may not discover defects or other problems with such vessels prior to purchase. Any such hidden defects or problems, when detected may be expensive to repair, and if not detected, may result in accidents or other incidents for which we may become liable to third parties. Also, when purchasing previously owned vessels, we typically do not receive the benefit of any builder warranties if the vessels we buy are older than one year.

In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increase with the age of the vessel. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Governmental regulations, safety and other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to some of our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which these vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives. As a result, regulations and standards could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay dividends.

We may incur additional bank debt in the future to fund, among other things, our general corporate purposes or the expansion of our fleet. The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the capital resources required to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain financing at anticipated costs or at all may materially affect our results of operation and our ability to implement our business strategy.

London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, is the subject of recent national, international and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. These reforms and other pressures may cause LIBOR to be eliminated or to perform differently than in the past. The consequences of these developments cannot be entirely predicted, but could include an increase in the cost of our variable rate indebtedness and obligations.  LIBOR has been volatile in the past, with the spread between LIBOR and the prime lending rate widening significantly at times. Because the interest rates borne by a majority of our outstanding indebtedness fluctuates with changes in LIBOR, significant changes in LIBOR would have a material effect on the amount of interest payable on our debt, which in turn, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition.

Furthermore, the calculation of interest in most financing agreements in our industry has been based on published LIBOR rates. Recently, however, there isDue in part to uncertainty relating to the LIBOR calculation process which may result in the phasingrecent years, it is likely that LIBOR will be phased out of LIBOR in the future. As a result, lenders have insisted on provisions that entitle the lenders, in their discretion, to replace published LIBOR

as the base for the interest calculation with their cost-of-funds rate. If we are required to agree to such a provision in future financing agreements, our lending costs could increase significantly, which would have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.  In addition, the banks currently reporting information used to set LIBOR will likely stop such reporting after 2021, when their commitment to reporting information ends. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee, or “Committee”, a committee convened by the Federal Reserve that includes major market participants, has proposed an alternative rate to replace U.S. Dollar LIBOR: the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or “SOFR.” The impact of such a transition away from LIBOR wouldto SOFR could be significant for us becauseus.

As of December 31, 2019, we had $1,701.3 million of outstanding debt. Certain of our substantial indebtedness.

Because some of these ratios are dependent on the market value of our vessels, may fluctuate significantly, we may incur losses when we sell vessels which may

These financial condition, results of operation and ability to pay dividends.

We may operate in a number of countries throughout the world, including countries known to have a reputation for corruption. We are committed to doing business in accordance with applicable anti-corruption laws and have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics which is consistent and in full compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or the FCPA. We are subject, however, to the risk that we, our affiliated entities or our or their respective officers, directors, employees and agents may take actions determined to be in violation of such anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA. Any such violation could result in substantial fines, sanctions, civil and/or criminal penalties, curtailment of operations in certain jurisdictions, and might adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, actual or alleged violations could damage our reputation and ability to do business. Furthermore, detecting, investigating, and resolving actual or alleged violations is expensive and can consume significant time and attention of our senior management.

The Economic Substance Act 2018 and the Economic Substance Regulations 2018 of Bermuda (the “Economic Substance Act” and the “Economic Substance Regulations”, respectively) became operative on December 31, 2018.  The Economic Substance Act applies to every registered entity in Bermuda that engages in a relevant activity and requires that every such entity shall maintain a substantial economic presence in Bermuda. Relevant activities for the purposes of the Economic Substance Act are banking business, insurance business, fund management business, financing business, leasing business, headquarters business, shipping business, distribution and service centre business, intellectual property holding business and conducting business as a holding entity, which may include a pure equity holding entityentity.

The Bermuda Economic Substance Act provides that a registered entity that carries on a relevant activity complies with economic substance requirements if (a) it is directed and managed in Bermuda, (b) its core income-generating activities (as may be prescribed) are undertaken in Bermuda with respect to the relevant activity, (c) it maintains adequate physical presence in Bermuda, (d) it has adequate full time employees in Bermuda with suitable qualifications and (e) it incurs adequate operating expenditure in Bermuda in relation to the relevant activity.

A registered entity that carries on a relevant activity is obliged under the Bermuda Economic Substance Act to file a declaration in the prescribed form (the “Declaration”) with the Registrar of Companies (the “Registrar”) on an annual basis.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the Bermuda Economic Substance Act or any similar law applicable to us in any other jurisdictions, we could be subject to financial penalties and spontaneous disclosure of information to foreign tax officials in related jurisdictions and may be struck from the register of companies in Bermuda or such other jurisdiction. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In December 2015, our Board of Directors, or our Board, approved implementing a dividend policy to distribute quarterly dividends to shareholders equal to or close to earnings per share adjusted for non-recurring items. In 2018, we did not declare any dividends.We paid a cash dividend of $0.10 per share in relation to the third quarter of 2019, and announced a cash dividend of $0.40 per share for the fourth quarter of 2019, which are the first cash dividends the Company has paid since 2017. The amount and timing of dividends will depend on our earnings, financial condition, cash position, Bermuda law affecting the payment of distributions and other factors. However, we could incur other expenses or contingent liabilities that would reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution by us as dividends. In addition, the timing and amount of dividends, if any, is at the discretion of our Board. We cannot guarantee that our Board will declare dividends in the future.

We cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain financing at all or on terms acceptable to us. If adequate funds are not available, we may have to reduce expenditures for investments in new and existing projects, which could hinder our growth and prevent us from realizing potential revenues from prior investments which will have a negative impact on our cash flows and results of operations.

We recorded goodwill of $225.3 million in 2015 in connection with the Merger. We are required to assess goodwill for impairment at least on an annual basis, or more frequently, if indicators are present or changes in circumstances suggest that impairment may exist. Our future operating performance may be affected by potential impairment charges related to goodwill. The process of evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill is subjective and requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis. In evaluating the potential for impairment, we make assumptions and estimates regarding revenue projections, growth rates, cash flows, tax rates, control premiums and discount rates, which are uncertain and by their nature may vary from actual results and are based on factors that are beyond our control.

In 2017, our assessment of goodwill for impairment resulted in us recording an impairment loss of $112.8 million. No such impairment was required in 2018 or 2019. As of December 31, 2018,2019, we had $112.5 million of goodwill on our balance sheet. Any further goodwill impairment loss would negatively impact our results of operations and financial position.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel. As of December 31, 2018,2019, the average age of our tanker fleet, owned, leased or chartered-in by us, is approximately four years. As our fleet ages, we will incur increased costs. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations, including environmental 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 our vessels may engage. As our vessels age, market conditions might not justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

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. 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.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, Hemen Holding Ltd, or Hemen, a Cyprus holding company, indirectly controlled by trusts established by our Chairman and President, Mr. Fredriksen, for the benefit of his immediate family, owns approximately 48.4%40.2% of our outstanding ordinary shares. For so long as Hemen owns a significant percentage of our outstanding ordinary shares, it may be able to exercise significant influence over us and will be able to strongly influence the outcome of shareholder votes on other matters, including the adoption or amendment of provisions in our articles of incorporation or bye-laws and approval of possible mergers, amalgamations, control transactions and other significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, merger, amalgamations, consolidation, takeover or other business combination. This concentration of ownership could also discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us, which could in turn have an adverse effect on the market price of our ordinary shares. Hemen, may not necessarily act in accordance with the best interests of other shareholders. The interests of Hemen may not coincide with the interests of other holders of our ordinary shares. To the extent that conflicts of interests may arise, Hemen may vote in a manner adverse to us or to you or other holders of our securities.

Certain of our directors, executive officers and major shareholders may have interests that are different from, or are in addition to, the interests of our other shareholders. In particular, Hemen Holding Limited, or Hemen, a company indirectly controlled by trusts established by Mr. Fredriksen, our director, for the benefit of his immediate family, and certain of its affiliates, holds 82,145,703,79,145,703, or 48.4%40.0%, of our ordinary shares.shares as of March 19, 2020.

Hemen is also a principal shareholder of a number of other large publicly traded companies involved in various sectors of the shipping and oil services industries, or the Hemen Related Companies. In addition, certain of our directors, including Mr. Lorentzon, Mr. Fredriksen, Mr. O'Shaughnessy and Ms. Laurin, also serve on the boards of one or more of the Hemen Related Companies, including but not limited to, Golden Ocean, Ship Finance InternationalSFL Corporation Ltd, or Ship Finance, Seadrill Limited,SFL, Archer Limited and Flex LNG Ltd.  There may be real or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting Hemen and other Hemen Related Companies whose interests in some circumstances may be adverse to our interests.

Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of our senior executives and also Mr. Fredriksen, our Chairman and President, for the management of our activities and strategic guidance. While we believe that we have an experienced management team, the loss or unavailability of one or more of our senior executives and also Mr. Fredriksen, for any extended period of time could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, we employed approximately 145157 people in our offices in Bermuda, the United Kingdom, Norway, Singapore and India. We contract with independent ship managers to manage and operate our vessels, including the crewing of those 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 available cash.

We procure insurance for our fleet against those risks that we believe the shipping industry commonly insures. These insurances include hull and machinery insurance; protection and indemnity insurance, which include environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage; freight, demurrage and defence insurance, provides cover to shipowners and operators for legal and other

costs incurred in relation to disputes that are uninsured; and war risk insurance. We can give no assurance that we will be adequately insured against all risks and we cannot guarantee that any particular claim will be paid.

Although we do not anticipate any difficulty in having our technical manager initially obtain insurance policies for us, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage for our vessels in the future or renew such policies on the same or commercially reasonable terms, or at all. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have in the past led to increased costs for, and in the future, may result in the lack of availability of, protection and indemnity insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends. In addition, our insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain of our actions, such as our vessels failing to maintain certification with applicable maritime self-regulatory organizations. Further, we cannot assure you that our insurance policies will cover all losses that we incur, or that disputes over insurance claims will not arise with our insurance carriers. Any claims covered by insurance would be subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material. In addition, our insurance policies may be subject to limitations and exclusions, which may increase our costs or lower our revenues, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

We may be subject to calls because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associationsassociations.

We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, if the value of our claim records, the claim records of our fleet managers, and/or 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) significantly exceed projected claims. 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.

Our executive offices, administrative activities and assets are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be more difficult for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us, or to enforce both in the United States and outside the United States judgments against us in any action, including actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States.

A foreign corporation will be 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, "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. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute "passive income." United States shareholders of a PFIC are 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.

Based on our current and proposed method of operation, we do not believe that we are, have been or will be a PFIC with respect to any taxable year. In this regard, we intend to treat the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering and voyage chartering activities as services income, rather than rental income. Accordingly, we believe that our income from these activities does not constitute "passive income," and the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income do not constitute assets that produce, or are held for the production of, "passive income."

Although there is no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our method of operation there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and United States Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, it should be noted that 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 were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our United States shareholders will face adverse United States federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those shareholders make an election available under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed below under "Taxation-United States Federal Income Tax Considerations"), such shareholders would be liable to pay United States federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our ordinary shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the shareholder's holding period of our ordinary shares. See "Taxation-United States Federal Income Tax Considerations-Passive Foreign Investment Company Status and Significant Tax Consequences" for a more comprehensive discussion of the United States federal income tax consequences to United States shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

Under the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves and our subsidiaries, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States, may be subject to a 4% United States federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.

We believe we qualify for this statutory tax exemption for the 20182019 taxable year.

However, we may not qualify for exemption under Section 883 in future taxable years. There are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption and become subject to United States federal income tax on our United States source shipping income. For example, if Hemen, who we believe to be a non-qualified shareholder, were to, in combination with other non-qualified shareholders with a 5% or greater interest in our ordinary shares, come to own 50% or more of our outstanding ordinary shares for more than half the days during the taxable year, we would not qualify for exemption under Section 883 for such taxable year. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, there can be no assurances on our tax-exempt status or that of any of our subsidiaries.

If we are not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, we could be subject during those years to an effective 2% United States federal income tax on gross shipping income derived during such a year that is attributable to the transport of cargoes to or from the United States. The imposition of this tax would have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

The trading price and volume of our ordinary shares has been and may continue to be subject to large fluctuations. The market price and volume of our ordinary shares may increase or decrease in response to a number of events and factors, including:

This volatility may adversely affect the prices of our ordinary shares regardless of our operating performance. To the extent that the price of our ordinary shares declines, our ability to raise funds through the issuance of equity or otherwise use our ordinary shares as consideration will be reduced. These factors may limit our ability to implement our operating and growth plans.

In order to finance our future operations and growth, we may have to incur substantial additional indebtedness and possibly issue additional equity securities. Future ordinary share issuances, directly or indirectly through convertible or exchangeable securities, options or warrants, will generally dilute the ownership interests of our existing ordinary shareholders, including their relative voting rights and could require substantially more cash to maintain the then existing level, if any, of our dividend payments to our ordinary shareholders, as to which no assurance can be given. Preferred shares, if issued, will generally have a preference on dividend payments, which could prohibit or otherwise reduce our ability to pay dividends to our ordinary shareholders. Our debt will be senior in all respects to our ordinary shareholders, will generally include financial and operating covenants with which we will be required to comply and will include acceleration provisions upon defaults thereunder, including our failure to make any debt service payments, and possibly under other debt.  Because our decision to issue equity securities or incur debt in the future will depend on a variety of factors, including market conditions and other matters that are beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the timing, amount or form of our capital raising activities in the future. Such activities could, however, cause the price of our ordinary shares to decline significantly.

We are Frontline Ltd., an international shipping company incorporated in Bermuda as an exempted company under the Bermuda Companies Law of 1981 on June 12, 1992 (Company No. EC-17460). On November 30, 2015, the Company and Frontline 2012 completed the Merger in which the Company was the legal aquireracquirer and Frontline 2012 was identified as the accounting acquirer. Frontline 2012 was incorporated in Bermuda on December 12, 2011. Our registered and principal executive offices are located at Par-la-Ville Place, 14 Par-la-Ville Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda, and our telephone number at that address is +(1) 441 295 6935. Our ordinary shares are currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, and the Oslo Stock Exchange, or the OSE, under the symbol of "FRO".

We are engaged primarily in the ownership and operation of oil and product tankers. We operate through subsidiaries located in Bermuda, India, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Norway, the United Kingdom and Singapore. We are also involved in the charter, purchase and sale of vessels.

On October 2, 2013, Frontline 2012 entered into an agreement with Stolt-Nielsen Limited, a public company incorporated in Bermuda and listed on the OSE and Sungas Holdings Ltd., a private company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, whereby Frontline 2012 became a 37.5% shareholder in Avance Gas for a purchase consideration of $70.7 million. In October 2013, Frontline 2012 declared the distribution of a dividend consisting of 12.5% of the capital stock of Avance Gas. Following the dividend distribution, the conversion of $33.4 million of shareholder loans to equity and a private placement by Avance Gas of 5,882,352 new shares, Frontline 2012 owned 6,955,975 shares in Avance Gas at December 31, 2013 representing 22.89% of the total number of shares outstanding.

On April 9, 2014, Avance Gas completed an initial public offering, or IPO, of 4,894,262 new ordinary shares. Also on April 9, 2014, Frontline 2012 sold 2,854,985 shares in Avance Gas and following the sale of shares in Avance Gas, Frontline 2012 owned 4,100,990 shares in Avance Gas at December 31, 2014, representing 11.62% of the total number of shares outstanding.

On March 25, 2015, Frontline 2012 paid a stock dividend consisting of 4.1 million Avance Gas shares. All shareholders holding 60.74 shares or more of Frontline 2012, received one share in Avance Gas for every 60.74 shares they held, rounded down to the nearest whole share. The remaining fractional shares were paid in cash. Frontline 2012 retained 112,715 shares and stopped

accounting for the investment as an equity method investment at this time as it no longer had significant influence over Avance Gas.

On April 3, 2014, Frontline 2012 and Golden Ocean entered into an agreement pursuant to which Frontline 2012 sold all of the shares of 30 SPCs in total, each owning a cash balance and a Capesize newbuilding, to Golden Ocean. The SPCs were sold in April 2014, September 2014 and March 2015. As a result of the sale Golden Ocean issued a total 77.5 million shares to Frontline 2012. Frontline 2012 owned approximately 70% of the total shares outstanding in Golden Ocean as a consequence of these transactions and accounted for it as a business combination achieved in stages with Frontline 2012 selected as the accounting acquirer.

On October 7, 2014, Golden Ocean and Golden Ocean Group Limited, or the Former Golden Ocean, entered into an agreement and plan of merger. The merger was completed on March 31, 2015, at which time Golden Ocean acquired 100% of the Former Golden Ocean's outstanding shares and the name of Knightsbridge Shipping Limited was changed to Golden Ocean Group Limited. Frontline 2012 de-consolidated Golden Ocean as of March 31, 2015, as its shareholding shareholding in Golden Ocean fell to approximately 45% and commenced equity accounting for its investment in Golden Ocean.

In June 2015, Frontline 2012 paid a stock dividend consisting of 75.4 million Golden Ocean shares. All shareholders holding 3.2142 shares or more, received one share in Golden Ocean for every 3.2142 shares held, rounded down to the nearest whole share. The remaining fractional shares were paid in cash. Frontline 2012 held 77.5 million Golden Ocean shares prior to this stock dividend and retained 2.1 million Golden Ocean shares in respect of the treasury shares held by Frontline 2012. This stock dividend triggered discontinued operations presentation of Frontline 2012's results of operations from Golden Ocean.

On November 30, 2015, pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated July 1, 2015, between the Company, Frontline Acquisition Ltd., a wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and Frontline 2012, the Company completed the Merger with Frontline 2012. The Merger has been accounted for as a business combination using the acquisition method of accounting under the provisions of ASC 805, with Frontline 2012 selected as the accounting acquirer under this guidance. Consequently, the Company's historical financial statements (in all subsequent financial statements that reflect the acquisition) will be those of Frontline 2012.

In April 2017, the Company ordered two VLCC newbuildings to be built at Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries. The vessels are due for deliverywere delivered in January and April 2019.

In February 2020, the Company announced that Frontline Shipping Limited, or FSL, agreed with SFL to terminate the long-term charter for the 2002-built VLCC Front Hakata upon the sale and delivery of the vessel by SFL to an unrelated third party. Frontline will receive a compensation payment of approximately $3.2 million from SFL for the termination of the current charter. The Company expects to take deliveryrecord a gain on termination, including the compensation payment, of approximately $7.4 million in the first quarter of 2020. The charter with SFL terminated in February 2020. Following this termination, FSL will have two VLCCs on charter from SFL. In conjunction with the termination of the remaining VLCC newbuildinglease, the Company settled the outstanding balances due under the notes payable in April 2019.relation to the termination of the leases for Front Circassia, Front Page, Front Serenade, Front Stratus and Front Ariake of approximately $20.0 million.

 

Furthermore, as of 0.6 million DWT,December 31, 2019, the Company’s newbuilding program was comprised of which one was delivered in January 2019Suezmax tanker and one isVLCC, which are expected to be delivered in April 2019.and May 2020, respectively, and four LR2 tankers, which are expected to be delivered in January 2021, March 2021, October 2021 and January 2022.

Our vessels operate worldwide and therefore management does not evaluate performance by geographical region as this information is not meaningful.

We own various vessel owning and operating subsidiaries. Our operations take place substantially outside of the United States. Our subsidiaries, therefore, own and operate vessels that may be affected by changes in foreign governments and other economic and political conditions. We are engaged in transporting crude oil and its related refined petroleum products and our vessels operate in the spot and time charter markets. Our VLCCs are specifically designed for the transportation of crude oil and, due to their size, are primarily used to transport crude oil from the Middle East Gulf to the Far East, Northern Europe, the Caribbean and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP. Our Suezmax tankers are similarly designed for worldwide trading, but the trade for these vessels is mainly in the Atlantic Basin, Middle East and Southeast Asia. Our LR2/ Aframax tankers are designed to be flexible, able to transport primarily refined products, but also fuel and crude oil from smaller ports limited by draft restrictions. The vessels will normally trade between the larger refinery centers around the world, being the Gulf of Mexico, Middle East, Rotterdam and Singapore.

We are committed to providing quality transportation services to all of our customers and to developing and maintaining long-term relationships with the major charterers of tankers. Increasing global environmental concerns have created a demand in the petroleum products/crude oil seaborne transportation industry for vessels that are able to conform to the stringent environmental standards currently being imposed throughout the world.

The tanker industry is highly cyclical, experiencing volatility in profitability, vessel values and freight rates. Freight rates are strongly influenced by the supply of tanker vessels and the demand for oil transportation. Refer to Item 5, "Operating and Financial Review and Prospects-Overview" for a discussion of the tanker market in 20172018 and 2018.2019.

Similar to structures commonly used by other shipping companies, our vessels are all owned by, or chartered to, separate subsidiaries or associated companies. Frontline Management AS and Frontline Management (Bermuda) Limited, both wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiaries, which we refer to collectively as Frontline Management, support us in the implementation of our decisions. Frontline Management is responsible for the commercial management of our ship owning subsidiaries, including chartering and insurance. Each of our vessels is registered under the Bahamas, Liberian, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Malta or Hong Kong flag.

In August 2009, the Company established SeaTeam Management Pte Ltd, or SeaTeam Management, a ship management company in Singapore. SeaTeam Management is a complement to the external ship management companies currently offering services to the Company and is not a change in the Company's outsourcing strategy. However, we would like to strengthen our position towards our service providers to enhance and secure delivery of high quality service at low cost in the future. SeaTeam Management was certified and received its ISM Document of Compliance by Det Norske Veritas on February 3, 2010 and is an approved ship management company. In addition, the Company opened a crewing company in Chennai, India, in January 2010. SeaTeam Management is a 66.56%71.38% owned subsidiary of Frontline.

No single customer in the year ended December 31, 2019, accounted for 10% or more of the Company's consolidated revenues. Revenues from one customer in the year ended December 31, 2018 individually accounted for 10% or more of the Company's consolidated revenues in the amount of $81.1 million. No customerssingle customer in the year ended December 31, 2017, accounted for 10% or more of the Company's consolidated revenues. Revenues from two customers in the year ended December 31, 2016 accounted for 10% or more of the Company's consolidated revenues in the amounts of $117.8 million and $78.0 million.

The market for international seaborne crude and oil products transportation services is highly fragmented and competitive. Seaborne oil transportation services are generally provided by two main types of operators: major oil company captive fleets (both private and state-owned) and independent ship-owner fleets. In addition, several owners and operators pool their vessels together on an ongoing basis, and such pools are available to customers to the same extent as independently owned-and-operated fleets. Many

Government regulation and laws significantly affect the ownership and operation of our fleet. We are subject to international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered relating to safety and health and environmental protection including the storage, handling, emission, transportation and discharge of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and the remediation of contamination and liability for damage to natural

resources. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of government and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (applicable national authorities such as the United States Coast Guard, or USCG, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administrations (countries of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and other authorizations for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or result in the temporary suspension of the operation of one or more of our vessels.

Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to the 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 United States and international 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 frequently change and may impose increasingly stricter 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 causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

The International Maritime Organization, or IMO, which is the United NationsNations' agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by vessels, (the “IMO”), has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, collectively referred to as MARPOL 73/78 and herein as “MARPOL,” adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS Convention, and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, or LL Convention. MARPOL establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged forms. MARPOL is applicable to drybulk, tanker and LNG carriers, among other vessels, and is broken into six Annexes, each of which regulates a different source of pollution. Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried in bulk in liquid or in packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, lastly, relates to air emissions. Annex VI was separately adopted by the IMO in September of 1997.1997; new emissions standards, titled IMO-2020, took effect on January 1, 2020.

In 2013, the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee, or the MEPC, adopted a resolution amending MARPOL Annex I Condition Assessment Scheme, or CAS. These amendments became effective on October 1, 2014, and require compliance with the 2011 International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, or “ESP Code,” which provides for enhanced inspection programs. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits “deliberate emissions” of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks, and

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

MEPC 73, amendments to Annex VI to prohibit the carriage of bunkers above 0.5% sulfur on ships were adopted and will take effect March 1, 2020. These regulations subject ocean-going vessels to stringent emissions controls, and may cause us to incur substantial costs.

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

Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. At the MEPC meeting held from March to April 2014, amendments to Annex VI were adopted which address the date on which Tier III Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) standards in ECAs will go into effect. Under the amendments, Tier III NOx standards apply to ships that operate in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs designed for the control of NOx produced by vessels with a marine diesel engine installed and constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Tier III requirements could apply to areas that will be designated for Tier III NOx in the future. At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, the MEPC approved the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for nitrogen oxide for ships built on or after January 1, 2021. The EPA promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in late 2009.2010. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.

As determined at the MEPC 70, the new Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI became effective as of March 1, 2018 and requires ships above 5,000 gross tonnage to collect and report annual data on fuel oil consumption to an IMO database, with the first year of data collection commencing on January 1, 2019. The IMO intends to use such data as the first step in its roadmap (through 2023) for developing its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, as discussed further below.

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

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

The SOLAS Convention was amended to address the safe manning of vessels and emergency training drills.  The Convention of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, or LLMC, sets limitations of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim or a property claim against ship owners. We believe that our vessels are in substantial compliance with SOLAS and LLMC standards.

Under Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention, or the International Safety Management Code, for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code, our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements. The ISM

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

Regulation II-1/3-10 of the SOLAS Convention governs ship construction and stipulates that ships over 150 meters in length must have adequate strength, integrity and stability to minimize risk of loss or pollution. Goal-based standards amendments in SOLAS regulation II-1/3-10 entered into force in 2012, with July 1, 2016 set for application to new oil tankers and bulk carriers. The SOLAS Convention regulation II-1/3-10 on goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers, which entered into force on January 1, 2012, requires that all oil tankers and bulk carriers of 150 meters in length and above, for which the building contract is placed on or after July 1, 2016, satisfy applicable structural requirements conforming to the functional requirements of the International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (GBS Standards).

Amendments to the SOLAS Convention Chapter VII apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, or IMDG Code. Effective January 1, 2018, the IMDG Code includes (1) updates to the provisions for radioactive material, reflecting the latest provisions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, (2) new marking, packing and classification requirements for dangerous goods, and (3) new mandatory training requirements. Amendments which took effect on January 1, 2020 also reflect the latest material from the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, including (1) new provisions regarding IMO type 9 tank, (2) new abbreviations for segregation groups, and (3) special provisions for carriage of lithium batteries and of vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas.

The IMO has also adopted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, or STCW. As of February 2017, all seafarers are required to meet the STCW standards and be in possession of a valid STCW certificate. Flag states that have ratified SOLAS and STCW generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS and STCW requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

The IMO's Maritime Safety Committee and MEPC, respectively, each adopted relevant parts of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Water (the “Polar Code”). The Polar Code, which entered into force on January 1, 2017, covers design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue as well as environmental protection matters relevant to ships operating in the waters surrounding the two poles. It also includes mandatory measures regarding safety and pollution prevention as well as recommendatory provisions. The Polar Code applies to new ships constructed after January 1, 2017, and after January 1, 2018, ships constructed before January 1, 2017 are required to meet the relevant requirements by the earlier of their first intermediate or renewal survey.

Furthermore, recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and United States agencies indicateindicates that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. For example, cyber-risk management systems must be incorporated by ship-owners and managers by 2021. This might cause companies to create additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures. The impact of such regulations is hard to predict at this time.

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

On December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of BWM Convention so that the dates are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This, in effect, makes all vessels delivered before the entry into force date “existing vessels” and allows for the installation of ballast water management systems on such vessels at the first International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) renewal survey following entry into force of the convention. The MEPC adopted updated guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) at MEPC 70. At MEPC 71, the schedule regarding the BWM Convention’s implementation dates was also discussed and amendments were introduced to extend the date existing vessels are subject to certain ballast water standards. Those changes were adopted at MEPC 72. Ships over 400 gross tons generally must comply with a “D-1 standard,” requiring the exchange of ballast water only in open seas and away from coastal waters. The “D-2 standard” specifies the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged, and compliance dates vary depending on the IOPP renewal dates. Depending on the date of the IOPP renewal survey, existing vessels must comply with the D-2 standard on or after September 8, 2019. For most ships, compliance with the D-2 standard will involve installing on-boardon-

board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Ballast Water Managementwater management systems, which include systems that make use of chemical, biocides, organisms or biological mechanisms, or which alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the Ballast Water,ballast water, must be approved in accordance with IMO Guidelines (Regulation D-3). As of October 13, 2019, MEPC 72’s amendments to the BWM Convention took effect, making the Code for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, which governs assessment of ballast water management systems, mandatory rather than permissive, and formalized an implementation schedule for the D-2 standard. Under these amendments, all ships must meet the D-2 standard by September 8, 2024. Costs of compliance with these regulations may be substantial.

Once mid-ocean ballast exchange ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory under the BWM Convention, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and may have a material effect on our operations. However, many countries already regulate the discharge of ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The U.S., for example, requires vessels entering its waters from another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternate measure, and to comply with certain reporting requirements.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by different Protocols in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000, or the CLC. 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 may be 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, the 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 shipowner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless act or omission where the shipowner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC requires ships over 2,000 tons 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 have protection and indemnity insurance for environmental incidents. P&I Clubs in the International Group issue the required Bunkers Convention “Blue Cards” to enable signatory states to issue certificates. All of our vessels are in possession of a CLC State issued certificate attesting that the required insurance coverage is in force.

The IMO also adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the “Bunker Convention”) to impose strict liability on ship owners (including the registered owner, bareboat charterer, manager or operator) 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 LLMC). 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.

Ships are required to maintain a certificate attesting that they maintain adequate insurance to cover an incident. In jurisdictions, such as the United States where the CLC or the Bunker Convention has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or on a strict-liability basis.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti‑fouling Systems on Ships, or the “Anti‑fouling Convention.” The Anti‑fouling Convention, which entered into force on September 17, 2008, prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages will also be required to undergo an initial survey before the vessel is put into service or before an International Anti‑fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time; and subsequent surveys when the anti‑fouling systems are altered or replaced. We have obtained Anti‑fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti‑fouling Convention.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or the 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 or operate within the U.S., its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S.’s territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the U.S. The U.S. has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, except in limited circumstances, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define “owner and operator” in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. 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, including bunkers (fuel). OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:

(i)    injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;

(ii)    injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;

(iv)    loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;

(iii)    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;

(v)    lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or natural resources; and

(vi)    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 December 21, 2015,November 12, 2019, the USCG adjusted the limits of OPA liability for a tank vessel, other than a single-hull tank vessel, over 3,000 gross tons liability to the greater of $2,200$2,300 per gross ton or $18,796,800$19,943,400 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation).  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 as required by law where the responsible 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 contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damages for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing the 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 $5.0 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.

OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG 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

Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s, or BSEE, revised Production Safety Systems Rule, or PSSR, effective December 27, 2018, modified and relaxed certain environmental and safety protections under the 2016 PSSR. Additionally, the BSEE released proposed changes toamended the Well Control Rule, effective July 15, 2019, which could rollrolled back certain reforms regarding the safety of drilling operations, and the U.S. President has proposed leasing new sections of U.S. waters to oil and gas companies for offshore drilling, expanding the U.S. waters that are available for such activity over the next five years.drilling. The effects of these proposals and changes are currently unknown. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA and future legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels could impact the cost of our operations and adversely affect our business.

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 and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills. 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. Moreover, some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, although 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 Company intends to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where the Company’s vessels call.

We currently maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 (including its amendments of 1977 and 1990), or 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. 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 concerning emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. Our vessels operating in such regulated port areas with restricted cargoes are equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these existing requirements.

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-issuedduly 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. In 2015, the EPA expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” , or WOTUS, thereby expanding federal authority under the CWA. Following litigation on the revised WOTUS rule, in December 2018, the EPA and Department of the Army proposed a revised, limited definition of “waters of the United States.” The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2019 and was subject to public comment. On October 22, 2019, the agencies published a final rule repealing the 2015 Rule defining “waters of the United States” and recodified the regulatory text that existed prior to 2015 Rule. The final rule became effective on December 23, 2019. On January 23, 2020, the EPA published the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” which replaces the rule published on October 22, 2019, and redefines “waters of the United States.” The effect of this proposal on U.S. environmental regulationsrule is stillcurrently unknown.

The EPA and the USCG have also 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 costs, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. Waters.  The EPA will regulate these ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, which was signed into law on December 4, 2018 and will replacereplaces the 2013 Vessel General Permit, or VGP program (which authorizes discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in U.S. waters, stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, and requirements for the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants) and current Coast Guard ballast water management regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, such as mid-ocean ballast exchange programs and installation of approved USCG technology for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks bound for U.S. ports or entering U.S. waters.  VIDA establishes a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under Clean Water Act (CWA), requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment, and requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement

submission of a Notice of Intent, or NOI or retention of a PARI form and submission of annual reports. We have submitted NOIs for our vessels where required. Compliance with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard and state regulations could require the installation of ballast water treatment equipment on our vessels or the implementation of other port facility disposal procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

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. The directive applies to all types of vessels, irrespective of their flag, but certain exceptions apply to warships or where human safety or that of the ship is in danger. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 (amending EU Directive 2009/16/EC) governs the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and, subject to some exclusions, requires companies with ships over 5,000 gross tonnage to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions annually, starting on January 1, 2018.which may cause us to incur additional expenses..

The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives requiring, among other things, more frequent inspections of high-risk ships, as determined by type, age, and flag as well as the number of times the ship has been detained. The European Union also adopted and extended a ban on substandard ships and enacted a minimum ban period and a definitive ban for repeated offenses. The regulation also provided the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, by imposing more requirements on classification societies and providing for fines or penalty payments for organizations that failed to comply. Furthermore, the EU has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/33/EC (amending Directive 1999/32/EC) introduced requirements parallel to those in Annex VI relating to the sulfur content of marine fuels. In addition, the EU imposed a 0.1% maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel (the so called “SOx-Emission Control Area”). As of January 2020, EU ports.member states must also ensure that ships in all EU waters, except the SOx-Emission Control Area, use fuels with a 0.5% maximum sulfur content.

The International LaborLabour Organization, or the ILO, is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime LaborLabour Convention 2006, or MLC 2006. A Maritime LaborLabour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime LaborLabour Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships abovethat are 500 gross tonstonnage or over and are either engaged in international trade.voyages or flying the flag of a Member and operating from a port, or between ports, in another country. We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with targets extended through 2020. International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships. OnThe U.S. initially entered into the agreement, but on June 1, 2017, the U.S. President announced that the United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.Agreement, which provides for a four-year exit process, meaning that the earliest possible effective withdrawal date cannot be before November 4, 2020. The timing and effect of such action has yet to be determined, but the Paris Agreement provides for a four-year exit process.determined.

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including (1) decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships; (2) reducing carbon dioxide emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008;2008 emission levels; and (3) reducing the total annual greenhouse emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely. The initial strategy notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for

international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition. These regulations could cause us to incur additional substantial expenses.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. Starting in January 2018, large ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information.

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, the U.S. President signed an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and in August 2019, the Administration announced plans to weaken regulations for methane emissions. The EPA or individual U.S. states could enact environmental regulations that would affect our operations.

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

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security such as the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.

Similarly, Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention imposes detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities and mandates compliance with the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. 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. Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained, expelled from, or refused entry at port until they obtain an ISSC. The various requirements, some of which are found in the SOLAS Convention, include, for example, 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.

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

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in the frequency of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area, and the Gulf of Guinea. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of detention of a vessel or additional security measures, and the risk of uninsured losses could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP45BMP5 industry standard.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and SOLAS. Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage and

lending that a vessel be certified “in class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies, the IACS. The IACS has adopted harmonized Common Structural Rules, or the Rules, which apply to

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys, drydockings and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel. If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The operation of any ocean-going vessel carries an inherent risk of catastrophic marine disasters and property losses caused by adverse weather conditions, mechanical failures, human error, war, terrorism and other circumstances or events. In addition, the transportation of crude oil is subject to the risk of spills, and business interruptions due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, labor strikes and boycotts. OPA has made liability insurance more expensive for ship owners and operators imposing potentially unlimited liability upon owners, operators and bareboat charterers for oil pollution incidents in the territorial waters of the United States. We believe that our current insurance coverage is adequate to protect us against the principal accident-related risks that we face in the conduct of our business.

Our protection and indemnity insurance, or P&I insurance, covers third-partythird party liabilities and other related expenses from, among other things, injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, claims arising from collisions, damage to cargo and other third-partythird party property and pollution arising from oil or other substances. Our current P&I insurance coverage for pollution is the maximum commercially available amount of $1.0 billion per vessel per incident and is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations. Each of the vessels currently in our fleet is entered in a protection and indemnity association which is a member of the International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs. The 13 protection and indemnity associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world's commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to re-insure each association's liabilities. The International Group’s website states that the Pool provides a mechanism for sharing all claims in excess of US$ 10 million up to, currently, approximately US$ 8.2 billion. For the 2016/172018/19 policy year, the International Group has maintained a three layerthree-layer GXL insurance program, together with an additional Collective Overspill layer, which combine to provide just over $3 billion of commercial reinsurance. As a member of protection and indemnity associations, which are, in turn, members 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 protection and indemnity associations comprising the International Group.

Our hull and machinery insurance covers actual or constructive total loss from covered risks of collision, fire, heavy weather, grounding and engine failure or damages from same. Our war risks insurance covers risks of confiscation, seizure, capture, vandalism, terrorism, sabotage and other war-related risks. Our loss-of-hire insurance covers loss of revenue for not less than $20,000 per day for Suezmax tankers and VLCCs for not less than 180 days resulting from an accident covered by the terms of our hull and machinery insurance for each of our vessels, with a 60 day deductible for all Suezmax tankers and VLCCs. Our LR2/Aframax product tankers are insured for not less than $20,000 for 90 days with a deductible of 14 days.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the fleet that we operated as of December 31, 2018:2019: 

Key to Flags:

BA – Bahamas, LIB - Liberia, MI – Marshall Islands, HK – Hong Kong.Kong, SG – Singapore, MLT – Malta.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, the Company’s fleet consisted of 6171 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of approximately 11.613.5 million DWT:

Refer to Item 4. for discussion on acquisitions and disposals of vessels. A summary of the changes in the vessels that we own, lease and charter-in for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 2017 and 20162017 is summarized in the table below.

As discussed below, our vessels are operated under time charters and voyage charters.