A. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY

The Company

We are Ship Finance International Limited, a Bermuda-based company incorporated in Bermuda on October 10, 2003, as a Bermuda exempted company under the Bermuda Companies Law of 1981 (Company No. EC-34296). We are engaged primarily in the ownership and operation of vessels and offshore related assets, and also involved in the charter, purchase and sale of assets.  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 is +1 (441) 295-9500.

We operate through subsidiaries, partnerships and branches located in Bermuda, Cyprus, Malta, Liberia, Norway, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the Marshall Islands.

We are an international ship owning and chartering company with one of the largest asset bases across the maritime and offshore industries. As at March 27, 2014 , our assets consist of 22 oil tankers, twelve drybulk carriers , 12 con tainer vessels, two car carriers, two jack-up drilling rigs, three ultra-deepwater drilling units, six offshore supply vessels and two chemical tankers. Our oil tankers and chemical tankers are all double-hull vessels.

Additionally we have contracted to take delivery of two newbuilding 4,800 TEU container vessels with estimated delivery in 2014, four newbuilding 8,700 TEU container vessels with estimated delivery in 2014 and 2015, and six 4,100 TEU container vessels built in 2002 with estimated delivery in 2014. The two newbuild ing 4,800 TEU container vessels are significantly delayed in their delivery by the shipyard, and there is a substantial risk that these newbuilding contracts will be cancelled.

Our customers currently include Frontline, Seadrill, NADL, Sinochem Shipping Co. Ltd. ("Sinochem"), Heung-A Shipping Co. Ltd. ("Heung-A"), Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd. ("Hyundai Glovis"), Western Bulk A/S ("Western Bulk"), Hamburg Süd Group, Maersk Line, PT Apexindo Pratama Duta, Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd ("OOCL"), MCC Transport Singapore Pte Ltd. ("MCC"), Oman Shipping Company S.A.O.C. ("Oman"), MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. ("MSC") and UFC. Our customers also currently include Deep Sea Supply Plc. and Deep Sea Supply BTG B.V., which is a joint venture owned 50% by Deep Sea Supply Plc. and 50% by BTG Pactual Oil & Gas Empreendimentos e Particapacoes S.A., or BTG Pactual. We refer to Deep Sea Supply Plc. and Deep Sea Supply BTG B.V. together as Deep Sea.

Our primary objective is to continue to grow our business through accretive acquisitions across a diverse range of marine and offshore asset classes. In doing so, our strategy is to generate stable and increasing cash flows by chartering our assets primarily under medium to long-term bareboat or time charters.

 

History of the Company

We were formed in 2003 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Frontline, a major operator of large crude oil tankers. On May 28, 2004, Frontline announced the distribution of 25% of our common shares to its ordinary shareholders in a partial spin off, and our common shares commenced trading on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, under the ticker symbol "SFL" on June 17, 2004. Frontline subsequently made six further dividends of our shares to its shareholders and its ownership in our Company is now less than one percent.

Pursuant to an agreement entered into in December 2003, we purchased from Frontline, effective January 2004, a fleet of 47 vessels, comprising 23 Very Large Crude Carriers, or VLCCs, including an option to acquire one VLCC, 16 Suezmax tankers and eight oil/bulk/ore carriers, or OBOs.

Since January 2005, we have diversified our asset base and now have eight asset types, comprising crude oil tankers, chemical tankers, container vessels, car carriers, drybulk carriers, jack-up drilling rigs, ultra-deepwater drilling units and offshore supply vessels.

Since 2006, we have sold all 18 of the non-double hull tankers we owned, and our tanker fleet now consists solely of double-hull vessels.

Most of our oil tankers are chartered to the Frontline Charterers under longer term time charters that have remaining terms that range from four to 13 years. The Frontline Charterers, in turn, charter our vessels to third parties. The daily base charter rates payable to us under the charters have been fixed in advance and will decrease as our vessels age. In December 2011, in response to a restructuring of Frontline necessitated by an extended period of low charter rates for oil tankers and OBOs, amendments were made to the charter agreements with the Frontline Charterers relating to 28 double-hull vessels, whereby we received a compensation payment of $106 million and agreed to temporarily reduce by $6,500 per day the base charter rates payable on each vessel.  The temporary reduction applies from January 1, 2012, until December 31, 2015. Thereafter, the base charter rates will revert to the previously agreed levels. For the duration of the temporary reduction, we are entitled to receive 100% of any excess above the reduced charter rates earned by the Frontline Charterers on our vessels, calculated annually on an average daily TCE basis and subject to a maximum excess of $6,500 per day per vessel. Eight of the vessels have been sold since December 2011, including all of the OBOs.

In addition to the base charter rates, the Frontline Charterers pay us a profit sharing amount equal to 25% of the charter revenues they realize above specified threshold levels, paid annually and calculated on an average daily TCE basis. Previously, up until December 31, 2011, this profit sharing rate was 20%. In terms of the agreement relating to the temporary reduction in base charter rates, of the $106 million compensation payment received, $50 million represents a non-refundable advance on profit sharing earnings relating to the 25% profit sharing agreement which took effect on January 1, 2012.

We have also entered into agreements with Frontline Management to provide fixed rate operation and maintenance services for the vessels on time charter to the Frontline Charterers, and for administrative support services. These agreements enhance the predictability and stability of our cash flows, by fixing substantially all of the operating expenses of our crude oil tankers.

The charters for the two jack-up drilling rigs, three ultra-deepwater drilling units, 11 of the container vessels (including the nine recently announced second hand vessels), six offshore supply vessels and two chemical tankers are all on bareboat terms, under which the respective charterer will bear all operating and maintenance expenses.

Acquisitions and Disposals

Acquisitions

In the year ended December 31, 2013, we took delivery of, or entered into agreements relating to the acquisition of, the following vessels:

Since January 1, 2014, we have taken delivery of, or entered into agreements relating to the acquisition of, vessels as follows:

Disposals

In the year ended December 31, 2013, we disposed of the following vessels:

Since January 1, 2014, we have disposed of vessels as follows:

B.BUSINESS OVERVIEW

Our Business Strategies

 

Our primary objectives are to profitably grow our business and increase long-term distributable cash flow per share by pursuing the following strategies:

Customers

 

The Frontline Charterers have been our principal customers since we were spun-off from Frontline in 2004. However, in 2008 we made substantial investments in offshore drilling units which are chartered to the Seadrill Charterers, and the percentage of our business attributable to the Frontline Charterers has decreased following the sale of several of the vessels chartered by them and the delivery and commencement of the charters of the drilling units. We anticipate that the percentage of our business attributable to both the Frontline Charterers and the Seadrill Charterers will decrease as we continue to expand our business and our customer base.

Competition

 

We currently operate in several sectors of the shipping and offshore industry, including oil transportation, drybulk shipments, chemical transportation, container transportation, car transportation, drilling rigs and offshore supply vessels.

The markets for international seaborne oil transportation services, drybulk transportation services, and container and car transportation services are highly fragmented and competitive. Seaborne oil transportation services are generally provided by two main types of operators: major oil companies or captive fleets (both private and state-owned) and independent shipowner 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 major oil companies and other commodity carriers also operate their own vessels and use such vessels not only to transport their own cargoes but also to transport cargoes for third parties, in direct competition with independent owners and operators.

Container vessels and car carriers are generally operated by logistics companies, where the vessels are used as an integral part of their services. Therefore, container vessels and car carriers are typically chartered more on a period basis and single voyage chartering is less common. As the market has grown significantly over recent decades, we expect in the future to see more vessels chartered by logistics companies on a shorter term basis, particularly smaller vessels.

Our jack-up drilling rigs, ultra-deepwater drilling units and offshore supply vessels are chartered out on long-term charters to contractors, and we are therefore not directly exposed to the short term fluctuation in these markets. Jack-up drilling rigs, ultra-deepwater drilling units and offshore supply vessels are normally chartered by oil companies on a shorter-term basis linked to area-specific well drilling or oil exploration activities, but there have also been longer period charters available when oil companies want to cover their longer term requirements for such vessels. Offshore supply vessels, ultra-deepwater drillships and semi-submersible drilling rigs are self-propelled, and can therefore easily move between geographic areas. Jack-up drilling rigs are not self-propelled, but it is common to move these assets over long distances on heavy-lift vessels. Therefore, the markets and competition for these rigs are effectively world-wide.

Competition for charters in all the above sectors is intense and is based upon price, location, size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel/rig and its manager. Competition is also affected by the availability of other size vessels/rigs to compete in the trades in which we engage. Most of our existing vessels are chartered at fixed rates on a long-term basis and are thus not directly affected by competition in the short-term. However, tankers chartered to the Frontline Charterers and drybulk carriers chartered to UFC are subject to profit sharing agreements, which will be affected by competition experienced by the charterers.

 

Risk of Loss and Insurance

 

Our business is affected by a number of risks, including mechanical failure, collisions, property loss to the vessels, cargo loss or damage, and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, the operation of any ocean-going vessel is subject to the inherent possibility of catastrophic marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade.

The insurance of our vessels which are chartered on a bareboat basis or on a time charter basis to the Frontline Charterers is the responsibility of the bareboat charterers or Frontline Management, respectively, who arrange insurance in line with standard industry practice. We are responsible for the insurance of our other time chartered and voyage chartered vessels. In accordance with standard practice, we maintain marine hull and machinery and war risks insurance, which include the risk of actual or constructive total loss, and protection and indemnity insurance with mutual assurance associations. From time to time we carry insurance covering the loss of hire resulting from marine casualties in respect of some of our vessels. Currently, the amount of coverage for liability for pollution, spillage and leakage available to us on commercially reasonable terms through protection and indemnity associations and providers of excess coverage is up to $1 billion per tanker per occurrence. Protection and indemnity associations are mutual marine indemnity associations formed by shipowners to provide protection from large financial loss to one member by contribution towards that loss by all members.

We believe that our current insurance coverage is adequate to protect us against the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that we maintain appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage, consistent with standard industry practice. However, there is no assurance that all risks are adequately insured against, that any particular claims will be paid, or that we will be able to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future.

Environmental Regulation and Other Regulations

 

Government regulations and laws significantly affect the ownership and operation of our crude oil tankers, drybulk carriers, chemical tankers, drilling units, container vessels, car carriers and offshore supply vessels.  We are subject to various international conventions, laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels and drilling units may operate or are registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel and drilling unit modification and implementation of certain operating procedures.

 

A variety of governmental, quasi-governmental and private organizations subject our assets to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections.  These organizations include the local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters or equivalent, classification societies, flag states and charterers, terminal operators, oil companies and drybulk and commodity owners.  Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses and certificates for the operation of our assets.  Our failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the assets in our fleet.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry, particularly older tankers.  Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to the stricter environmental standards.  We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels emphasizing operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations.  We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations; however, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly 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.  The IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments Convention, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004, which when ratified will require investment in new equipment on board our vessels, but it is not possible to quantify the costs of such modifications at this time. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

The laws and regulations discussed below may not constitute a comprehensive list of all such laws and regulations that are applicable to the operation of our vessels and drilling units.

 

Flag State

 

The flag state, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is responsible for implementing and enforcing a broad range of international maritime regulations with respect to all ships granted the right to fly its flag. The "Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance" evaluates flag states based on factors such as sufficiency of infrastructure, ratification, implementation and enforcement of principal international maritime treaties, supervision of surveys, casualty investigations, compliance with International Labour Organization reporting, and participation at International Maritime Organization meetings. Our vessels are flagged in Liberia, Singapore, the Bahamas, Cyprus, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Panama, Hong Kong, and Norway.

International Maritime Organization

 

The United Nations' International Maritime Organization, or the IMO, has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, collectively referred to as MARPOL 73/78 and herein as "MARPOL". MARPOL entered into force on October 2, 1983.  It has been adopted by over 150 nations, including many of the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate.  MARPOL sets forth pollution prevention requirements applicable to all 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 liquid bulk or packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and lastly, Annex VI relates to air emissions.  Annex VI was separately adopted by the IMO in September 1997.

 

In December 2003, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the IMO, or MEPC, adopted amendments to Annex I of the MARPOL Convention, which became effective in April 2005. The amendments:

a) revised then existing regulation 13G (now Regulation 20 of Annex I) accelerating the phase-out of single hull oil tankers. The Company has no single hull or double sided tankers in its fleet.

b) adopted a new regulation 13H (now Regulation 21 of Annex I), aimed at the prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers carrying as cargo heavy grade oil, or HGO, which includes most of the grades of marine fuel. Under Regulation 21, HGO means any of the following:

 

 

Any port state can deny ship-to-ship transfer of HGO in areas under its jurisdiction, except when such transfer is necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea.

Revised Annex I to the MARPOL Convention entered into force in January 2007 and has undergone various minor amendments since then. Revised Annex I also imposes construction requirements for oil tankers delivered on or after January 1, 2010. An amendment to revised Annex I amended the definition of HGO and broadened the scope of regulation 21. An amendment to Annex I regulation 12A came into force on August 1, 2007. Regulation 12A requires fuel oil tanks to be located inside the double hull in all ships with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600m ³ and above which are delivered on or after August 1, 2010, including ships for which the building contract is entered into on or after August 1, 2007, or for which the keel is laid on or after February 1, 2008,, in the absence of a contract.

Non-compliance with the ISM Code or with other IMO regulations may subject a shipowner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to loss of or decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in denial of access to, or detention in, some ports including United States and European Union ports.

 

Air Emissions

 

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution.  Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on nitrogen oxide emissions from ships whose diesel engines were constructed, or underwent major conversions, on or after January 1, 2000.  It also prohibits "deliberate emissions" of "ozone depleting substances", defined to include certain halons and chlorofluorocarbons. "Deliberate emissions" are not limited to times when the ship is at sea; they can for example include discharges occurring in the course of the ship's repair and maintenance. Also prohibited is the emission of "volatile organic compounds" from certain tankers, and the shipboard incineration of certain substances, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), using incinerators installed after January 1, 2000.  

The MEPC adopted amendments to Annex VI on October 10, 2008, 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 ships. As of January 1, 2012, the amended Annex VI requires that fuel oil contain no more than 3.50% sulfur, a reduction from the previous cap of 4.50%.  By January 1, 2020, sulfur content must not exceed 0.50%, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.

 

Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain ECAs. As of July 1, 2010, ships operating within an ECA may not use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 1.00% (a reduction from the previous cap of 1.50%), which is further reduced to 0.10% on January 1, 2015.  The Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been designated ECAs, and Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs. Effective August 1, 2012, certain coastal areas of North America were designated ECAs, and effective January 1, 2014, the United States Caribbean Sea was designated an ECA. Ocean-going vessels in these areas will be subject to stringent emissions controls, which may cause us to incur additional costs. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO, or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the 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 new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. The EPA promulgated equivalent, and in some cases stricter, emissions standards in 2009.

As of January 1, 2010, the Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 6, 2005, amending Directive 1999/32/EC, came into force. The objective of the directive is to reduce emission of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter caused by the combustion of certain petroleum derived fuels. The directive imposes limits on the sulfur content of such fuels as a condition of their use within a Member State territory. As of January 1, 2010, marine fuels used by inland waterway vessels and ships at berth in ports in EU countries must have a maximum sulfur content of 0.10% by mass. On July 15, 2011, the European Commission adopted a proposal for an amendment of Directive 1999/32/EC which would align requirements with those imposed by the revised MARPOL Annex VI which introduced stricter sulfur limits. Directive 2012/33/EU, also amending Directive 1999/32//EC, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on November 17, 2012. The deadline for bringing member states' legislation into compliance is June 18, 2014, and the amended sulfur directive will enter into force on January 1, 2015.

 

Safety Requirements

 

The IMO also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, and the International Convention on Load Lines, or LL Convention, which impose a variety of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL Convention standards, and amendments to SOLAS made in May 2012 entered into force on January 1, 2014. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, or LLMC, was recently amended and the amendments are expected to go into effect on June 8, 2015. The amendments alter the limits of liability for loss of life or personal injury claims and property claims against ship-owners.

The operation of our ships is also affected by the requirements contained in Chapter IX of SOLAS, which sets forth the IMO's International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code. The ISM Code requires ship owners and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System", or SMS, 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. We intend to rely upon the safety management system that the appointed ship managers have developed.

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a Safety Management Certificate, or SMC, for each vessel they operate.  This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel's operators with the ISM Code requirements for a SMS. No vessel can obtain a SMC under the ISM Code unless its manager has been awarded a "Document of Compliance", or DOC, issued in most instances by the vessel's flag state. As of the date of this report, our appointed ship managers have obtained DOCs for their office and SMCs for all of our vessels for which such certificates are required by the IMO, and these are renewed as required.

Non-compliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the ship owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, lead to loss of or decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels, and result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports.  As of the date of this report, each of our vessels is ISM Code certified. However, there can be no assurance such certificates will be maintained.

The IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for oil pollution in international waters and a signatory's territorial waters. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business and which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Ballast Water Requirements

 

The IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004. The BWM Convention's implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. To date, there has not been sufficient adoption of this standard for it to take force, but it is close. Many of the implementation dates originally written in the BWM Convention have already passed, so that once it enters into force, the period for installation of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements would be extremely short, with several thousand vessels each year needing to install ballast water management systems (BWMS). For this reason, on December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of the BWM Convention so that they are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This in effect makes all vessels constructed before the entry into force date "existing vessels", and allows for the installation of a BWMS on such vessels at the first renewal survey following entry into force. Once mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers. Although we do not believe that the costs of such compliance would be material, it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such requirements on our operations.

Oil Pollution Liability

 

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 has adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by Protocols in 1976, 1984 and 1992, and further amended in 2000, or the CLC (of which the United States is not a party). Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions.  The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability, expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the ship-owner's personal fault, and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship-owner's personal act or omission by intentional or reckless conduct, where the ship-owner knew pollution damage would probably result. A state that is a party to the CLC may not allow a ship under its flag to trade unless that ship has a certificate of insurance or something equivalent. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that of the CLC. The CLC requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner's liability for a single incident. We believe that our insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO has adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage of 2001, or the Bunker Convention, to impose strict liability on ship-owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in ships' bunkers is typically determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

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

 

United States Requirements

 

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment following oil spills. OPA affects all "owners and operators" whose vessels trade with the United States, its territories and possessions, or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which include the United States territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define "owner 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, other than an agent or employee of, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship with, the responsible party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels. OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages, which include:

 

OPA limits the liability of responsible parties with respect to single-hull tankers over 3,000 gross tons to the greater of $3,200 per gross ton or $23,496,000, while for all other tankers over 3,000 gross tons the liability is limited to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17,088,000.  For non-tank vessels, such as drybulk carriers, liability is limited to the greater of $1,000 per gross ton or $854,400, subject to periodic adjustment for inflation.  For offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, liability is capped at the total of all removal costs plus $75 million. 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 with the responsible party, or by a responsible party's gross negligence or willful misconduct.  The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident where the 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 Pollution Act (Section 311 (c) and (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.

OPA permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, which may include charterers and cargo owners and operators of vessels.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA.  For example, on August 15, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement released a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practices. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes. Additional legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels that may be implemented in the future could adversely affect our business.

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 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 non-contractual third party, an act of God or an act of war.  Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo, and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel.  These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations.  The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refuses to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.

OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard, or USCG, evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. An owner or operator of more than one tanker is required to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for the entire fleet in an amount equal only to the financial responsibility requirement relating to the vessel with the greatest maximum liability. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer, or a guarantee. We comply with the USCG's financial responsibility regulations by providing a certificate of responsibility evidencing self-insurance.

We have and expect to maintain pollution liability insurance coverage in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Under OPA, with certain limited exceptions, all newly-built or converted vessels operating in U.S. waters must be built with double-hulls, and existing vessels that do not comply with the double-hull requirement are prohibited from trading in U.S. waters as of dates ranging over a 25-year period (1990-2015) based on size, age and place of discharge, unless retrofitted with double-hulls. Notwithstanding the prohibition to trade schedule, the act currently permits existing single-hull and double-sided tankers to operate until the year 2015 if their operations within U.S. waters are limited to discharging at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port or off-loading by lightering within authorized lightering zones more than 60 miles off-shore. Lightering is the process by which vessels at sea off-load their cargo to smaller vessels for ultimate delivery to the discharge port.

Owners or operators of vessels and facilities operating in the waters of the United States must file vessel and facility response plans with the USCG, and their vessels and facilities are required to operate in compliance with their USCG approved plans. These response plans must, among other things, describe response activities for a discharge, identify response resources, describe crew training and drills, and identify a qualified individual with full authority to implement removal actions.

 

We have obtained vessel response plans approved by the USCG for our vessels operating in the waters of the U.S.

Other Environmental Initiatives

 

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

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

 

The EPA regulates the discharge of ballast and bilge water and other substances in U.S. waters under the CWA.  EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels) to comply with a Vessel General Permit, or VGP, authorizing ballast and bilge water discharges and other discharges incidental to the operation of vessels.  The VGP imposes technology and water-quality based effluent limits for certain types of discharges and establishes specific inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure the effluent limits are met.  On March 28, 2013, the EPA re-issued the VGP for another five years, effective from December 19, 2013. The new VGP focuses on authorizing 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, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, and the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants.  

In addition, under §401 of the CWA, the VGP must be certified by the state where the discharge is to take place. Certain states have enacted additional discharge standards as conditions to their certification of the VGP. These local standards bring the VGP into compliance with more stringent state requirements, such as those further restricting ballast water discharges and preventing the introduction of non-indigenous species considered to be invasive. The VGP and its state-specific regulations and any similar restrictions enacted in the future will increase the costs of operating in the relevant waters.

USCG regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in U.S. waters. As of June 21, 2012, the USCG implemented revised regulations establishing standards on the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships in U.S. waters. Compliance with the EPA and the USCG regulations is likely to require the installation of certain engineering equipment and water treatment systems to treat ballast water before it is discharged, or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, as of January 1, 2014, vessels are technically subject to the phasing-in of these standards. As a result, the USCG has provided waivers to vessels which cannot install the as-yet unapproved technology. The EPA, on the other hand, has taken a different approach to enforcing ballast discharge standards under the VGP. On December 27, 2013, the EPA issued an enforcement response policy in connection with the new VGP in which the EPA indicated that it would take into account the reasons why vessels do not have the requisite technology installed, but will not grant any waivers.

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, including its amendments of 1977 and 1990, or the CAA, requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants.  Our vessels are subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas.  Our vessels that operate in such port areas with restricted cargoes are equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements.  The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in each state.  Although state-specific, SIPs may include regulations relating to emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment.  As indicated above, our vessels operating in covered port areas are already equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these existing requirements.  

Compliance with future EPA and USCG regulations could require the installation of certain engineering equipment and water treatment systems to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

Our vessels carry cargoes to U.S. waters regularly, and we believe that all of our vessels are suitable to meet OPA and other U.S. environmental requirements and that they would also qualify for trade if chartered to serve U.S. ports.

European Union Regulations

 

In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and if the discharges individually or in aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. Member states were required to enact laws or regulations to comply with the directive by the end of 2010.  Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. 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.

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, flag, and the number of times the ship has been detained.  The European Union also adopted and then 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.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

 

Currently, 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.

As of January 1, 2013, all ships must comply with mandatory requirements adopted by the IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee, or MEPC, in July 2011 relating to greenhouse gas emissions. All ships are now required to follow the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans, or SEEMP, and the minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile outlined in the Energy Efficiency Design Index, or EEDL, applies to all new ships. These requirements could cause us to incur additional compliance costs. The IMO is planning to implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at an upcoming MEPC session. The European Union has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from marine vessels, and in January 2012 the European Commission launched a public consultation on possible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. In April 2013, the E.U. Parliament rejected proposed changes to the E.U. Emissions Law regarding carbon trading. In June 2013, the European Commission developed a strategy to integrate maritime emissions into the overall E.U. strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the strategy is adopted by the European Parliament and Council, large vessels using E.U. ports would be required to monitor, report and verify their carbon dioxide emissions beginning in January 2018. In December 2013, the E.U. environmental ministers discussed draft rules to implement monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions from ships. In the United States, the EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, and has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and large stationary sources. Although the mobile source emissions regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, such regulation of vessels is foreseeable, and the EPA has in recent years received petitions from the California Attorney General and various environmental groups seeking such regulation. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives adopted by the IMO, European Union, the United States or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures, including capital expenditures to upgrade our vessels, which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

International Labour Organization

 

The International Labour Organization, or ILO, is a specialized agency of the UN. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, or the MLC 2006. A Maritime Labour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. The MLC 2006 entered into force on August 20, 2013, and requires us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements. Our P&I clubs have with effect from August 20, 2013, amended their insurance policies to cover elements from MLC 2006, including but not limited to the repatriation of crew and other crew social security provisions.

Offshore Drilling Regulations

 

Our offshore drilling units are subject to many of the above environmental laws and regulations relating to vessels, but are also subject to laws and regulations focused on offshore drilling operations. We may incur costs to comply with these revised standards.

Rigs and drillships must comply with MARPOL limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, chlorofluorocarbons, and the discharge of other air pollutants, except that the MARPOL limits do not apply to emissions that are directly related to drilling, production, or processing activities. As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for new ships, including the requirement that all new ships utilize the EEDI and the SEEMP.

Our drilling units are subject not only to MARPOL regulation of air emissions, but also to the Bunker Convention's strict liability for pollution damage caused by discharges of bunker fuel in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states. We believe that all of our drilling units are currently compliant in all material respects with these regulations.

Furthermore, any drillships that we may operate in United States waters, including the U.S. territorial sea and the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States, would have to comply with OPA and CERCLA requirements, among others, that impose liability (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 of oil or other hazardous substances, other than discharges related to drilling.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, periodically issues guidelines for rig fitness requirements in the Gulf of Mexico and may take other steps that could increase the cost of operations or reduce the area of operations for our units, thus reducing their marketability. Implementation of BOEM guidelines or regulations may subject us to increased costs or limit the operational capabilities of our units, and could materially and adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

 

In addition to the MARPOL, OPA and CERCLA requirements described above, our international offshore drilling operations are subject to various laws and regulations in countries in which we operate, including laws and regulations relating to the importation of and operation of drilling units and equipment, currency conversions and repatriation, oil and gas exploration and development, environmental protection, taxation of offshore earnings and earnings of expatriate personnel, the use of local employees and suppliers by foreign contractors, and duties on the importation and exportation of drilling units and other equipment. New environmental or safety laws and regulations could be enacted, which could adversely affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Governments in some countries have become increasingly active in regulating and controlling the ownership of concessions and companies holding concessions, the exploration for oil and gas, and other aspects of the oil and gas industries in their countries. In some areas of the world, this governmental activity has adversely affected the amount of exploration and development work done by major oil and gas companies and may continue to do so. Operations in less developed countries can be subject to legal systems that are not as mature or predictable as those in more developed countries, which can lead to greater uncertainty in legal matters and proceedings. Implementation of new environmental laws or regulations that may apply to ultra-deepwater drilling units may subject us to increased costs or limit the operational capabilities of our drilling units and could materially and adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

Vessel Security Regulations

 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003 the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The regulations also impose requirements on certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.

 

Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security.  The new Chapter V became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, and mandates compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, or the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. Amendments to SOLAS Chapter VII, made mandatory in 2004, apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels to comply with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

To trade internationally a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state. Among the various requirements are:

 

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

The USCG, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels that have on board as of July 1, 2004, a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel's compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code.

We have implemented the various security measures addressed by MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code, and our fleet is in compliance with applicable security requirements.

Inspection by Classification Societies

 

Classification Societies are independent organizations that establish and apply technical standards in relation to the design, construction and survey of marine facilities including ships and offshore structures. Every ocean-going vessel must be "classed" by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is "in class", signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel's country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

 

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

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

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

Seasonality

 

Most of our vessels are chartered at fixed rates on a long-term basis and seasonal factors do not have a significant direct effect on our business. Our tankers on charter to the Frontline Charterers are subject to cash sweep and profit sharing agreements and to the extent that seasonal factors affect the profits of the charterers of these vessels we will also be affected. However, any cash sweep and profit sharing receivables relating to the Frontline Charterers are paid annually and the effects of seasonality will be limited to the timing of our cash sweep and profit sharing revenues. Four of our Handysize drybulk carriers currently employed under short-term charters to UFC are also subject to agreements for profit sharing payable at the expiry of their respective charters, and the effects of seasonality will be limited to the timing of these profit sharing revenues.

 

C. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

See Exhibit 8.1 for a list of our significant subsidiaries.