20-F
Table of Contents


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 20-F

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

OR

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

OR

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

For the transition period from ____ to ____

OR

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

Date of event requiring this shell company report: Not applicable

Commission file number 001-13944

 
NORDIC AMERICAN TANKERS LIMITED
 
 
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
 
     
     
 
(Translation of Registrant's name into English)
 
     
 
BERMUDA
 
 
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
     
 
LOM Building
 
 
27 Reid Street
 
 
Hamilton HM 11
 
 
Bermuda
 
 
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
 


 
 

 
 
 
Herbjшrn Hansson, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer,
Tel No. 1 (441) 292-7202,
LOM Building, 27 Reid Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda
 
 
(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and
Address of Company Contact Person)
 
 
 
 
 
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
 
 
 
 
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
 
 
Series A Participating Preferred Stock
 
 
Title of class
 
 
 
 
 
New York Stock Exchange
 
 
Name of exchange on which registered
 

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

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

As of December 31, 2012, there were 52,915,639 shares outstanding of the Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value per share.

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 
o Yes
x No

If this report is an annual report or transition report, indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

o Yes
x No

Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

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

x Yes
o No

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

Large accelerated filer  x
Accelerated filer  o
 
 
Non-accelerated filer
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)  o
 
 
 
ii

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

x
U.S. GAAP

o
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board

o
Other

If "Other" has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the Registrant has elected to follow.

o
Item 17

o
Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

o Yes
x No
 
 
iii

 
 
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
 
Certain matters discussed herein may constitute forward-looking statements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor protections for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to provide prospective information about their business. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts.
 
The Company desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation. The words "believe," "anticipate," "intend," "estimate," "forecast," "project," "plan," "potential," "may," "should," "expect," "pending" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.
 
The forward-looking statements are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions, including without limitation, our management's examination of historical operating trends, data contained in our records and other data available from third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were reasonable when made, because these assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs or projections. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
 
Important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include the strength of world economies and currencies, general market conditions, including fluctuations in charter rates and vessel values, changes in demand in the tanker market, as a result of changes in OPEC's petroleum production levels and world wide oil consumption and storage, changes in our operating expenses, including bunker prices, drydocking and insurance costs, the market for our vessels, availability of financing and refinancing, changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities, potential liability from pending or future litigation, general domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents or political events, vessel breakdowns and instances of off-hire, failure on the part of a seller to complete a sale of a vessel to us and other important factors described from time to time in the reports filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
Please note in this annual report, "we," "us," "our," and the "Company," all refer to Nordic American Tankers Limited.
 
 
iv

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
   
 
     
ITEM 1.
     
ITEM 2.
     
ITEM 3.
     
   
ITEM 4.
     
   
ITEM 4A.
     
ITEM 5.
     
   
 
     
ITEM 6.
     
   
ITEM 7.
     
   
ITEM 8.
     
   
ITEM 9.
     
ITEM 10.
     
 
 
   
ITEM 11.
     
ITEM 12.
     
 
     
ITEM 13.
     
ITEM 14.
     
ITEM 15.
     
B. Management's annual report on internal control over financial reporting. 68
C. Attestation report of the registered public accounting firm. 68
D. Changes in internal control over financial reporting. 68
 
ITEM 16.
     
ITEM 16A.
     
ITEM 16B.
     
ITEM 16C.
     
   
ITEM 16D.
     
ITEM 16E.
     
ITEM 16F.
     
ITEM 16G.
     
ITEM 16H.
     
 
     
ITEM 18.
     
ITEM 19.
 
 
vi

 
PART I
 
ITEM 1.
 
Not applicable
 
ITEM 2.
 
Not applicable
 
ITEM 3.
 
A. Selected Financial Data
 
The following historical financial information should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements and related notes all of which are included elsewhere in this document and "Operating and Financial Review and Prospects."  The Statement of Operations data for each of the three years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 are derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this document. The statements of operations data for each of the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and selected balance sheet data for each of the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are derived from our audited financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.
 
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
 
 
 
All figures in thousands of USD except share data
 
2012
 
 
2011
 
 
2010
 
 
2009
 
 
2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Voyage revenues
 
 
130,682
 
 
 
94,787
 
 
 
126,416
 
 
 
124,370
 
 
 
228,000
 
Voyage expenses
 
 
(38,670
)
 
 
(14,921
)
 
 
-
 
 
 
(8,959
)
 
 
(10,051
)
Vessel operating expense – excl. depreciation expense presented below
 
 
(63,965
)
 
 
(54,859
)
 
 
(47,113
)
 
 
(43,139
)
 
 
(35,593
)
General and administrative expenses
 
 
(14,700
)
 
 
(15,394
)
 
 
(15,980
)
 
 
(14,819
)
 
 
(12,785
)
Depreciation
 
 
(69,219
)
 
 
(64,626
)
 
 
(62,545
)
 
 
(55,035
)
 
 
(48,284
)
Impairment Loss on Vessel
   
(12,030
)
   
-
     
-
     
-
     
-
 
Loss on Contract
 
 
-
 
 
 
(16,200
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
Net operating (loss) income
 
 
(67,902
)
 
 
(71,213
)
 
 
788
 
 
 
2,418
 
 
 
121,288
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest income
 
 
357
 
 
 
1,187
 
 
 
632
 
 
 
614
 
 
 
931
 
Interest expense
 
 
(5,854
)
 
 
(2,130
)
 
 
(1,971
)
 
 
(1,794
)
 
 
(3,392
)
Other financial (expense) income
 
 
207
 
 
 
(142
)
 
 
(248
)
 
 
(226
)
 
 
(17
)
Total other expenses
 
 
(5,290
)
 
 
(1,085
)
 
 
(1,587
)
 
 
(1,406
)
 
 
(2,443
)
Net (loss) income
 
 
(73,192
)
 
 
(72,298
)
 
 
(809
)
 
 
1,012
 
 
 
118,844
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
Basic (loss) earnings per share
 
 
(1,39
)
 
 
(1.53
)
 
 
(0.02
)
 
 
0.03
 
 
 
3.63
 
Diluted (loss) earnings per share
 
 
(1,39
)
 
 
(1.53
)
 
 
(0.02
)
 
 
0.03
 
 
 
3.62
 
Cash dividends declared per share
 
 
1.20
 
 
 
1.15
 
 
 
1.70
 
 
 
2.35
 
 
 
4.89
 
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
 
 
52,547,623
 
 
 
47,159,402
 
 
 
46,551,564
 
 
 
40,449,522
 
 
 
32,739,057
 
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
 
 
52,547,623
 
 
 
47,159,402
 
 
 
46,551,564
 
 
 
40,449,522
 
 
 
32,832,854
 
Market price per common share as of December 31,
 
 
8.75
 
 
 
11.99
 
 
 
26.02
 
 
 
30.00
 
 
 
33.75
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other financial data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash (Used in)  provided by operating activities
   
(567
)
   
(12,163
)
   
57,752
     
63,195
     
127,900
 
Dividends paid
 
 
63,497
 
 
 
54,273
 
 
 
79,728
 
 
 
95,431
 
 
 
165,886
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
Selected Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
 
 
55,511
 
 
 
24,006
 
 
 
17,221
 
 
 
30,496
 
 
 
31,378
 
Total assets
 
 
1,085,624
 
 
 
1,125,385
 
 
 
1,083,083
 
 
 
946,578
 
 
 
813,878
 
Total long-term debt
 
 
250,000
 
 
 
230,000
 
 
 
75,000
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
15,000
 
Common stock
 
 
529
 
 
 
473
 
 
 
469
 
 
 
422
 
 
 
344
 
Total shareholders' equity
 
 
809,383
 
 
 
867,563
 
 
 
992,955
 
 
 
934,084
 
 
 
788,586
 
 
 
1

 
B. Capitalization and Indebtedness
 
Not applicable
 
C. Reasons for the offer and use of Proceeds
 
Not applicable
 
D. Risk Factors
 
Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and our business in general. Other risks relate principally to the securities market and ownership of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events described in this section could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating results or cash available for dividends or the trading price of our common stock.
 
Industry Specific Risk Factors
 
If the tanker industry, which historically has been cyclical, is depressed in the future, our earnings and available cash flow may decrease.
 
The tanker industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability. Spot market rates are still relatively low compared to the rates achieved in the years preceding the global financial crisis. Fluctuations in charter rates and tanker values result from changes in the supply and demand for tanker capacity and changes in the supply and demand for oil and oil products.
 
The factors affecting the supply and demand for tankers have been volatile and are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.
 
The factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:
 
 
demand for oil and oil products,
 
 
supply of oil and oil products,
 
 
regional availability of refining capacity,
 
 
regional imbalances in production/demand,
 
 
global and regional economic and political conditions, including developments in international trade and fluctuations in industrial and agricultural production,
 
 
the distance oil and oil products are to be moved by sea,
 
 
changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns, including changes in the distances over which oil and oil products are transported by sea,
 
 
weather and acts of God and natural disasters, including hurricanes and typhoons,
 
 
environmental and other legal and regulatory developments,
 
 
currency exchange rates,
 
 
competition from alternative sources of energy and from other shipping companies and other modes of transportation, and
 
 
international sanctions, embargoes, import and export restrictions, nationalizations, piracy and wars.
 
The factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:
 
 
2

 
 
current and expected purchase orders for tankers,
 
 
the number of tanker newbuilding deliveries,
 
 
the scrapping rate of older tankers,
 
 
conversion of tankers to other uses or conversion of other vessels to tankers,
 
 
the price of steel and vessel equipment,
 
 
the successful implementation of the phase-out of single-hull tankers,
 
 
technological advances in tanker design and capacity,
 
 
tanker freight rates, which are affected by factors that may affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying up of tankers,
 
 
the number of tankers that are out of service, and
 
 
changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful lives of tankers.
 
Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and factors that can affect the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. The current global economic crisis may reduce demand for transportation of oil over longer distances and supply of tankers to carry that oil, which may materially affect our revenues, profitability and cash flows. As of the date of this annual report, all of our operating vessels are in the Orion Tankers Pool, with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager. In September 2012, we agreed to purchase the 50% interest held by Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO) and became the sole owner of Orion Tankers Ltd. as of January 2, 2013. We are highly dependent on spot market charter rates. If spot charter rates decline, we may be unable to achieve a level of charterhire sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably. If we are not profitable, we may not be able to meet our obligations, including making payments on any future indebtedness, or paying dividends. Furthermore, as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage, which may last up to several weeks, during periods in which spot charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases, or alternatively lose this opportunity, should the rise be short-lived.
 
Any decrease in shipments of crude oil may adversely affect our financial performance.
 
The demand for our vessels and services in transporting oil derives primarily from demand for Arabian Gulf, West African, North Sea and Caribbean crude oil, which, in turn, primarily depends on the economies of the world's industrial countries and competition from alternative energy sources. A wide range of economic, social and other factors can significantly affect the strength of the world's industrial economies and their demand for crude oil from the mentioned geographical areas. One such factor is the price of worldwide crude oil. The world's oil markets have experienced high levels of volatility in the last 25 years. In July 2008, oil prices rose to a high of approximately $143 per barrel before decreasing to approximately $38 per barrel by the end of December 2008 and then rising to approximately $92 per barrel as of the end of December 2010 and continuing to rise to approximately $100 by the end of December 2011. In 2012, crude oil reached a high of $118.74 per barrel and a low of $91.19 per barrel.
 
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:
 
 
increased crude oil production from other areas;
 
 
increased refining capacity in the Arabian Gulf or West Africa;
 
 
increased use of existing and future crude oil pipelines in the Arabian Gulf or West Africa;
 
 
a decision by Arabian Gulf or West African oil-producing nations to increase their crude oil prices or to further decrease or limit their crude oil production;
 
 
armed conflict in the Arabian Gulf and West Africa and political or other factors; and
 
 
3

 
 
the development and the relative costs of nuclear power, natural gas, coal and other alternative sources of energy.
 
In addition, the current economic conditions affecting the United States and world economies may result in reduced consumption of oil products and a decreased demand for our vessels and lower charter rates, which could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and our ability to pay dividends.

We are dependent on spot charters and any decrease in spot charter rates in the future may adversely affect our earnings and our ability to pay dividends.
 
We currently operate a fleet of 20 vessels and all vessels are employed in the spot market. We are highly dependent on spot market charter rates.
 
We may enter into spot charters for any additional vessels that we may acquire in the future. Although spot chartering is common in the tanker industry, the spot charter market may fluctuate significantly based upon tanker and oil supply and demand. The successful operation of our vessels in the spot charter market depends upon, among other things, obtaining profitable spot charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent travelling unladen to pick up cargo. The spot market is very volatile, and, in the past, there have been periods when spot rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. If future spot charter rates decline, then we may be unable to operate our vessels trading in the spot market profitably, meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness, or to pay dividends.  Furthermore, as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage which may last up to several weeks, during periods in which spot charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases.
 
Our ability to renew the charters on our vessels on the expiration or termination of our current charters, or on vessels that we may acquire in the future, the charter rates payable under any replacement charters and vessel values will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the seaborne transportation of energy resources.

Our results of operations are subject to seasonal fluctuations, which may adversely affect our financial condition.
 
We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, charter rates. Peaks in tanker demand quite often precede seasonal oil consumption peaks, as refiners and suppliers anticipate consumer demand. Seasonal peaks in oil demand can broadly be classified into two main categories: (1) increased demand prior to Northern Hemisphere winters as heating oil consumption increases and (2) increased demand for gasoline prior to the summer driving season in the United States. Unpredictable weather patterns and variations in oil reserves disrupt tanker scheduling. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results, as our vessels will trade in the spot market. Seasonal variations in tanker demand will affect any spot market related rates that we may receive.
 
Declines in charter rates and other market deterioration could cause us to incur impairment charges.
 
Our vessels are evaluated for impairment continuously or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. The review for potential impairment indicators and projection of future cash flows related to the vessel is complex and requires us to make various estimates, including future freight rates and earnings from the vessel.  All of these items have been historically volatile. We evaluate the recoverable amount as the undiscounted estimated cash flow from the vessels over their remaining useful lives. If the recoverable amount is less than the carrying amount of the vessel and less than the estimated fair market value, the vessel is deemed impaired. The carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time because the market prices of secondhand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of newbuildings. Any impairment charges incurred as a result of declines in charter rates could negatively affect our business, financial condition and operating results. Impairment charges may be limited to each individual vessels or be based on a portfolio approach. In 2012, we have impaired one vessel using an individual approach.
 
An over-supply of tanker capacity may lead to reductions in charter rates, vessel values, and profitability.
 
 
4

 
The market supply of tankers is affected by a number of factors such as demand for energy resources, oil, and petroleum products, as well as strong overall economic growth in parts of the world economy including Asia. If the capacity of new ships delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and lost, tanker capacity will increase. If the supply of tanker capacity increases and if the demand for tanker capacity does not increase correspondingly, charter rates could materially decline. A reduction in charter rates and the value of our vessels may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to pay dividends.
 
Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business
 
Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Although the frequency of sea piracy worldwide decreased during 2012 to its lowest level since 2009, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea, with drybulk vessels and tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks. If these piracy attacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being characterized as "war risk" zones by insurers or Joint War Committee "war and strikes" listed areas, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including costs which may be incurred to the extent we employ onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
Changes in the economic and political environment in China and policies adopted by the government to regulate its economy may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
The Chinese economy differs from the economies of most countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, in such respects as structure, government involvement, level of development, growth rate, capital reinvestment, allocation of resources, rate of inflation and balance of payments position.  Prior to 1978, the Chinese economy was a planned economy.  Since 1978, increasing emphasis has been placed on the utilization of market forces in the development of the Chinese economy.  Annual and five-year plans, or State Plans, are adopted by the Chinese government in connection with the development of the economy. Although state-owned enterprises still account for a substantial portion of the Chinese industrial output, in general, the Chinese government is reducing the level of direct control that it exercises over the economy through State Plans and other measures.  There is an increasing level of freedom and autonomy in areas such as allocation of resources, production, pricing and management and a gradual shift in emphasis to a "market economy" and enterprise reform.  Limited price reforms were undertaken, with the result that prices for certain commodities are principally determined by market forces.  Many of the reforms are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition based upon the outcome of such experiments.  Recently, China began appointing new members to its Politburo Standing Committee, who are replacing members of the committee who have served for periods of up to 10 years, which obscures the future policy plans of the country.  If the Chinese government does not continue to pursue a policy of economic reform the level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by changes to these economic reforms by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government, such as changes in laws, regulations or export and import restrictions, all of which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.
 
If economic conditions throughout the world do not improve, it will have an adverse impact on our operations and financial results
 
Negative trends in the global economy that emerged in 2008 continue to adversely affect global economic conditions. In addition, the world economy continues to face a number of challenges, including the recent turmoil and hostilities in the Middle East, North Africa and other geographic areas and countries and continuing economic weakness in the European Union. There has historically been a strong link between the development of the world economy and demand for energy, including oil and gas. An extended period of deterioration in the outlook for the world economy could reduce the overall demand for oil and gas and for our services. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions will last. However, recent and developing economic and governmental factors, together with the concurrent decline in charter rates and vessel values, have had a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy.
 
 
5

 
The continued economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region, especially in Japan and China, may exacerbate the effect on us of the recent slowdown in the rest of the world. Before the global economic financial crisis that began in 2008, China had one of the world's fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP, which had a significant impact on shipping demand. The growth rate of China’s GDP decreased to approximately 7.8% for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to approximately 9.3% for the year ended December 31, 2011, and continues to remain below pre-2008 levels. China has imposed measures to restrain lending, which may further contribute to a slowdown in its economic growth. China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region may continue to experience slowed or even negative economic growth in the future. Moreover, the current economic slowdown in the economies of the United States, the European Union and other Asian countries may further adversely affect economic growth in China and elsewhere. Our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, would likely be impeded by a continuing or worsening economic downturn in any of these countries.
 
The state of global financial markets and economic conditions may adversely impact our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms, which may hinder or prevent us from expanding our business.
 
Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile.  Recently, operating businesses in the global economy have faced tightening credit, weakening demand for goods and services, deteriorating international liquidity conditions, and declining markets. There has been a general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly in the shipping industry, due to the historically volatile asset values of vessels. As the shipping industry is highly dependent on the availability of credit to finance and expand operations, it has been negatively affected by this decline.
 
Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the cost of obtaining money from the credit markets has increased as many lenders have increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to current debt and reduced, and in some cases ceased, to provide funding to borrowers. Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that financing will be available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable terms.  In addition, these difficulties may adversely affect the financial institutions that provide us with our $430 million revolving credit facility, or the 2012 Credit Facility, and may impair their ability to continue to perform under their financing obligations to us, which could negatively impact our ability to fund current and future obligations.  As of the date of this annual report we have drawn down an aggregate of $250.0 million.
 
The instability of the euro or the inability of countries to refinance their debts could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, profitability and financial position

As a result of the credit crisis in Europe, in particular in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the European Commission created the European Financial Stability Facility, or the EFSF, and the European Financial Stability Mechanism, or the EFSM, to provide funding to Eurozone countries in financial difficulties that seek such support. In March 2011, the European Council agreed on the need for Eurozone countries to establish a permanent stability mechanism, the European Stability Mechanism, or the ESM, which was established on September 27, 2012 to assume the role of the EFSF and the EFSM in providing external financial assistance to Eurozone countries. Despite these measures, concerns persist regarding the debt burden of certain Eurozone countries and their ability to meet future financial obligations and the overall stability of the euro. An extended period of adverse development in the outlook for European countries could reduce the overall demand for oil and gas and for our services. These potential developments, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flow.

Changes in the price of fuel, or bunkers, may adversely affect our profits.
 
Fuel, or bunkers, is a significant, if not the largest, expense in our shipping operations.  Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability.  The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns.  Further, fuel may become much more expensive in the future, which may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, which can adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends.
 
 
6


Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (generally referred to as CERCLA), the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Clean Air Act, the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, European Union Regulations, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (as from time to time amended and generally referred to as CLC), the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (as from time to time amended and generally referred to as MARPOL), the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 (as from time to time amended and generally referred to as SOLAS), the IMO International Convention on Load Lines of 1966 (as from time to time amended), the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (generally referred to as the Bunker Convention), the IMO's International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (generally referred to as the ISM Code), the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments Discharge (generally referred to as the BWM Convention),  and the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (generally referred to as the MTSA). Compliance with such laws, regulations and standards, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. We may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including, but not limited to, costs relating to air emissions, including greenhouse gases, the management of ballast waters, maintenance and inspection, development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. A failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations. Environmental laws often impose strict liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances, which could subject us to liability without regard to whether we were negligent or at fault. Under OPA, for example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil within the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war). An oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other international and U.S. federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages, including punitive damages, and could harm our reputation with current or potential charterers of our tankers. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although we have arranged insurance to cover certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends.
 
Furthermore, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or other events, may result in further regulation of the tanker industry, and modifications to statutory liability schemes, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Increased inspection procedures, tighter import and export controls and new security regulations could increase costs and cause disruption of our business
 
International shipping is subject to security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin, destination and trans-shipment points. Since the events of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. In 2002 the U.S. MTSA came into effect and to implement certain portions of the MTSA, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. These security procedures can result in delays in the loading, offloading or trans-shipment and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against exporters or importers and, in some cases, carriers. Future changes to the existing security procedures may be implemented that could affect the tanker sector. These changes have the potential to impose additional financial and legal obligations on carriers and, in certain cases, to render the shipment of certain types of goods uneconomical or impractical. These additional costs could reduce the volume of goods shipped, resulting in a decreased demand for vessels and have a negative effect on our business, revenues and customer relations.
 
Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and markets.
 
 
7

 
Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries and the IMO have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures may include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. In addition, although the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping currently are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which required adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, a new treaty may be adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about the environmental impact of climate change, may also adversely affect demand for our services. For example, increased regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil and gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.
 
If we fail to comply with international safety regulations, we may be subject to increased liability, which may adversely affect our insurance coverage and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.
 
The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the IMO's International Management Code for the Safe Operations of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS.  The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies.  If we fail to comply with the ISM Code, we may be subject to increased liability, may invalidate existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for our affected vessels and such failure may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.
 
The value of our vessels may fluctuate and any decrease in the value of our vessels could result in a lower price of our common shares.
 
Tanker values have generally experienced high volatility. The market prices for tankers declined significantly from historically high levels reached in early 2008 and remain at relatively low levels. The market value of our oil tankers can fluctuate, depending on general economic and market conditions affecting the tanker industry. The current volatility in global financial markets may result in a decrease in tanker values. In addition, as vessels grow older, they generally decline in value. These factors will affect the value of our vessels. Declining tanker values could affect our ability to raise cash by limiting our ability to refinance our vessels, thereby adversely impacting our liquidity, or result in a breach of our loan covenants, which could result in defaults under the 2012 Credit Facility. Due to the cyclical nature of the tanker market, if for any reason we sell vessels at a time when tanker prices have fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel's carrying amount on our financial statements, with the result that we would also incur a loss and a reduction in earnings. Any such reduction could result in a lower price of our common shares.
 
If our vessels suffer damage due to the inherent operational risks of the tanker industry, we may experience unexpected dry-docking costs and delays or total loss of our vessels, which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.
 
Our vessels and their cargoes will be at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as marine disasters, bad weather and other acts of God, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions and collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy and other circumstances or events. Changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These hazards may result in death or injury to persons, loss of revenues or property, the payment of ransoms, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships, market disruptions, delay or rerouting.  In addition, the operation of tankers has unique operational risks associated with the transportation of oil. An oil spill may cause significant environmental damage, and the costs associated with a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available to us.  Compared to other types of vessels, tankers are exposed to a higher risk of damage and loss by fire, whether ignited by a terrorist attack, collision, or other cause, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil transported in tankers.
 
 
8

 
If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a dry-docking facility. The costs of dry-dock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay dry-docking costs that our insurance does not cover at all or in full. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, may adversely affect our business and financial condition. In addition, space at dry-docking facilities is sometimes limited and not all dry-docking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable dry-docking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a dry-docking facility that is not conveniently located to our vessels' positions. The loss of earnings while these vessels are forced to wait for space or to travel to more distant dry-docking facilities may adversely affect our business and financial condition.  Further, the total loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.  If we are unable to adequately maintain or safeguard our vessels, we may be unable to prevent any such damage, costs, or loss which could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.
 
If labor interruptions are not resolved in a timely manner, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
 
We employ masters, officers and crews to man our vessels. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out as we expect and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
 
We operate our vessels worldwide and as a result, our vessels are exposed to international risks which may reduce revenue or increase expenses.
 
The international shipping industry is an inherently risky business involving global operations. Our vessels are at a risk of damage or loss because of events such as mechanical failure, collision, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, cargo loss and bad weather. In addition, changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These sorts of events could interfere with shipping routes and result in market disruptions which may reduce our revenue or increase our expenses.
 
International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspections and related procedures in countries of origin and destination and trans-shipment points.  Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of the cargo and/or our vessels, delays in loading, offloading or delivery, and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against us. It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. Furthermore, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and available cash.
 
World events could affect our results of operations and financial condition.
 
Continuing conflicts and recent developments in the Middle East, including Egypt, and North Africa, including Libya, and the presence of the United States and other armed forces in Afghanistan, may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute to further economic instability in the global financial markets. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. In the past, political conflicts have also resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt international shipping, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea and the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Any of these occurrences, or the perception that our vessels are potential terrorist targets, could have a material adverse impact on our operating results, revenues, costs and ability to pay dividends in amounts anticipated or at all.
 
The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.
 
We expect that our vessels will call in ports where smugglers attempt to hide drugs and other contraband on vessels, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent our vessels are found with contraband, whether inside or attached to the hull of our vessel and whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew, we may face governmental or other regulatory claims which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
 
 
9

 
From time to time, our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. or other governments, that could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our common stock.

From time to time, vessels in our fleet call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Sudan. The Company has not been involved in business to and from Cuba, Syria or Iran during the period January 1 through December 31, 2012. Our vessels may, on charterers’ instructions, call on ports in Sudan. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. With effect from July 1, 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, or CISADA, which expanded the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act. Among other things, CISADA expands the application of the prohibitions to companies, such as ours, and introduces limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to the investment, supply or export of refined petroleum or petroleum products. In addition, on May 1, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13608 which prohibits foreign persons from violating or attempting to violate, or causing a violation of any sanctions in effect against Iran or facilitating any deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject 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.

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 Additionally, some investors may decide not to invest in our company simply because we do business with companies that do business in sanctioned countries. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or to divest from, our common stock may adversely affect the price at which our common stock trades. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. In addition, our reputation and the market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters with individuals or entities in countries subject to U.S. sanctions and embargo laws that are not controlled by the governments of those countries, or engaging in operations associated with those countries pursuant to contracts with third parties that are unrelated to those countries or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.
 
Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which would have a negative effect on our cash flows.
 
Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting or attaching a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our business or require us to pay large sums of money to have the arrest lifted, which would have a negative effect on our cash flows.
 
In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the "sister ship" theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel which is subject to the claimant's maritime lien and any "associated" vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert "sister ship" liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another of our ships.
 
 
10

 
Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, which may negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.
 
A government could requisition for title or seize our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Also, a government could requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at government-dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels may negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.
 
Company Specific Risk Factors
 
We operate in a cyclical and volatile industry and cannot guarantee that we will continue to make cash distributions.
 
We have made cash distributions quarterly since October 1997. It is possible that our revenues could be reduced as a result of decreases in charter rates or that we could incur other expenses or contingent liabilities that would reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. Our 2012 Credit Facility prohibits the declaration and payment of dividends if we are in default under the 2012 Credit Facility. We refer you to Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospectus—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Our Credit Facilities for more details. We may not continue to pay dividends at rates previously paid or at all.

A decision of our Board of Directors and the laws of Bermuda may prevent the declaration and payment of dividends.
 
Our ability to declare and pay dividends is subject at all times to the discretion of our Board of Directors and compliance with Bermuda law, and may be dependent upon the adoption at the annual meeting of shareholders of a resolution effectuating a reduction in our share premium in an amount equal to the estimated amount of dividends to be paid in the next succeeding year. We refer you to Item 8—Financial Information—Dividend Policy for more details. We may not continue to pay dividends at rates previously paid or at all.

If we do not identify suitable tankers for acquisition or successfully integrate any acquired tankers, we may not be able to grow or to effectively manage our growth.
 
One of our principal strategies is to continue to grow by expanding our operations and adding to our fleet. Our future growth will depend upon a number of factors, some of which may not be within our control. These factors include our ability to:
 
 
identify suitable tankers and/or shipping companies for acquisitions at attractive prices, which may not be possible if asset prices rise too quickly,
 
 
manage relationships with customers and suppliers,
 
 
identify businesses engaged in managing, operating or owning tankers for acquisitions or joint ventures,
 
 
integrate any acquired tankers or businesses successfully with our then-existing operations,
 
 
hire, train and retain qualified personnel and crew to manage and operate our growing business and fleet,
 
 
identify additional new markets,
 
 
improve our operating, financial and accounting systems and controls, and
 
 
obtain required financing for our existing and new operations.
 
 
11

 
Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in November 2004, we transitioned from a bareboat charter company to an operating company. We may incur unanticipated expenses as an operating company. The number of employees of Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the Manager, that perform services for us and our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate as we implement our plan to expand the size of our fleet.  Finally, acquisitions may require additional equity issuances or debt issuances (with amortization payments), both of which could lower dividends per share. If we are unable to execute the points noted above, our financial condition and dividend rates may be adversely affected.
 
If we purchase and operate secondhand vessels, we will be exposed to increased operating costs which could adversely affect our earnings and, as our fleet ages, the risks associated with older vessels could adversely affect our ability to obtain profitable charters.
 
Our current business strategy includes additional growth through the acquisition of new and secondhand vessels. We took delivery of four secondhand vessels from July 2009 to September 2011.  We did not take delivery of any vessels in 2012.  While we always inspect secondhand vessels prior to purchase, this does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. We may receive the benefit of warranties from the builders for the secondhand vessels that we acquire direct from yard.
 
In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel.
 
Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations, or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which the vessels may engage.
 
If we do not set aside funds and are unable to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, at the end of a vessel's useful life our revenue will decline, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
 
If we do not set aside funds and are unable to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, we will be unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their remaining useful lives, which we expect to range from 10 years to 24 years, depending on the type of vessel. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our vessels. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends would be adversely affected. Any funds set aside for vessel replacement will not be available for dividends.
 
We may be unable to attract and retain key management personnel in the tanker industry, which may negatively impact the effectiveness of our management and our results of operation
 
Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of the Manager and our management team. Our success will depend upon our and the Manager's ability to hire and retain key members of our management team. Difficulty in hiring and retaining personnel could adversely affect our results of operations. We do not maintain "key man" life insurance on any of our officers.
 
Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians) may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without an appropriate work permit granted by the Bermuda government. Work permits may be granted or extended by the Bermuda government upon showing that, after proper public advertisement in most cases, no Bermudian (or spouse of a Bermudian) is available who meets the minimum standard requirements for the advertised position.
 
An increase in operating costs would decrease earnings and dividends per share.
 
Under the spot charters of all of our operating vessels, we are responsible for vessel operating expenses. Our vessel operating expenses include the costs of crew, fuel (for spot chartered vessels), provisions, deck and engine stores, insurance and maintenance and repairs, which fuels depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Some of these costs, primarily relating to insurance and enhanced security measures implemented after September 11, 2001, have been increasing. If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. Increases in any of these expenses would decrease earnings and dividends per share.
 
 
12

 
If we are unable to operate our vessels profitably, we may be unsuccessful in competing in the highly competitive international tanker market, which would negatively affect our financial condition and our ability to expand our business.
 
The operation of tanker vessels and transportation of crude and petroleum products is extremely competitive. The current global financial crisis may reduce the demand for transportation of oil and oil products which could lead to increased competition. Competition arises primarily from other tanker owners, including major oil companies as well as independent tanker companies, some of whom have substantially greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of oil and oil products can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the tanker and its operators to the charterers. We will have to compete with other tanker owners, including major oil companies as well as independent tanker companies.
 
Our market share may decrease in the future. We may not be able to compete profitably as we expand our business into new geographic regions or provide new services. New markets may require different skills, knowledge or strategies than we use in our current markets, and the competitors in those new markets may have greater financial strength and capital resources than we do.
 
Servicing our debt limits funds available for other purposes and if we cannot service our debt, we may lose our vessels.
 
Borrowing under the 2012 Credit Facility requires us to dedicate a part of our cash flow from operations to paying interest on our indebtedness. These payments limit funds available for working capital, capital expenditures and other purposes, including making distributions to shareholders and further equity or debt financing in the future. Amounts borrowed under the 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at variable rates. Increases in prevailing rates could increase the amounts that we would have to pay to our lenders, even though the outstanding principal amount remains the same, and our net income and cash flows would decrease. We expect our earnings and cash flow to vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the tanker industry. In addition, our current policy is not to accumulate cash, but rather to distribute our available cash to shareholders. If we do not generate or reserve enough cash flow from operations to satisfy our debt obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing plans, such as:
 
 
seeking to raise additional capital,
 
 
refinancing or restructuring our debt,
 
 
selling tankers or other assets, or
 
 
reducing or delaying capital investments.
 
However, these alternative financing plans, if necessary, may not be sufficient to allow us to meet our debt obligations. If we are unable to meet our debt obligations or if some other default occurs under the 2012 Credit Facility, the lenders could elect to declare that debt, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against the collateral securing that debt, which constitutes our entire fleet.
 
Our 2012 Credit Facility contains restrictive covenants which limit our liquidity and corporate activities, which could negatively affect our growth and cause our financial performance to suffer.
 
The 2012 Credit Facility imposes operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability to:
 
 
pay dividends and make capital expenditures if we do not repay amounts drawn under the  2012 Credit Facility or if we are otherwise in default under the 2012 Credit Facility,
 
 
create or allow to subsist any security interest over any of the Company’s vessels,
 
 
change the flag, class or management of our vessels or terminate or materially amend the management agreement relating to each vessel,
 
 
sell our vessels,
 
 
merge or consolidate with, or transfer all or substantially all of our assets to another person, or
 
 
13

 
 
enter into a new line of business.
 
Therefore, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders' interests may be different from ours and we may not be able to obtain our lenders' permission when needed. This may limit our ability to pay dividends to you, finance our future operations or capital requirements, make acquisitions or pursue business opportunities.
 
If the recent volatility in LIBOR rates continues, it could affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.
 
Interest in most loan agreements in our industry, including our 2012 Credit Facility, is based on published London Interbank Offered Rates, or LIBOR. Amounts borrowed under our 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin. LIBOR rates have recently been volatile, with the spread between those rates and prime lending rates widening significantly at times.  These conditions are the result of the recent disruptions in the international credit markets. Because the interest rates borne by amounts that we drawdown under our 2012 Credit Facility fluctuate with changes in the LIBOR rates, if this volatility were to continue, it would affect the amount of interest payable on amounts that we drawdown from our 2012 Credit Facility, which in turn, would have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.
 
We are subject to certain risks with respect to our counterparties on contracts, and failure of such counterparties to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses or negatively impact our results of operations and cash flows.
 
We have entered into various contracts, including charter parties with our customers, through Orion Tankers pool, and our 2012 Credit Facility and from time to time, we may enter into newbuilding contracts. Such agreements subject us to counterparty risks. The ability of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a contract with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the maritime and offshore industries, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, charter rates received for specific types of vessels, and various expenses. For example, the combination of a reduction of cash flow resulting from declines in world trade, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of availability of debt or equity financing may result in a significant reduction in the ability of our charterers to make charter payments to us. In addition, in depressed market conditions, our charterers and customers may no longer need a vessel that is currently under charter or contract or may be able to obtain a comparable vessel at lower rates. As a result, charterers and customers may seek to renegotiate the terms of their existing charter parties or avoid their obligations under those contracts. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under agreements with us, we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Our insurance may not be adequate to cover our losses that may result from our operations due to the inherent operational risks of the tanker industry.
 
We carry insurance to protect us against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business, including marine hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes pollution risks, crew insurance and war risk insurance. However, we may not be adequately insured to cover losses from our operational risks, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, our insurers may refuse to pay particular claims and our insurance may be voidable by the insurers if we take, or fail to take, certain action, such as failing to maintain certification of our vessels with applicable maritime regulatory organizations. Any significant uninsured or under-insured loss or liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates in the future during adverse insurance market conditions.
 
As a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. response to the attacks and related concern regarding terrorism, insurers have increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally. Accordingly, premiums payable for terrorist coverage have increased substantially and the level of terrorist coverage has been significantly reduced.
 
Any loss of a vessel or extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, which result in significant expenses to us, we may be required to make additional premium payments.
 
 
14

 
We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records, as well as the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. In addition, our protection and indemnity associations may not have enough resources to cover claims made against them. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expense to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.
 
Because some of our expenses are incurred in foreign currencies, we are exposed to exchange rate fluctuations, which could negatively affect our results of operations.
 
The charterers of our vessels pay us in U.S. Dollars. While we currently incur all of our expenses in U.S. Dollars, we have in the past incurred expenses in other currencies, most notably the Norwegian krone. Declines in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the Norwegian krone, or the other currencies in which we may incur expenses in the future, would increase the U.S. Dollar cost of paying these expenses and thus would adversely affect our results of operations.
 
We may have to pay tax on United States source income, which would reduce our earnings.
 
Under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves, attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be characterized as U.S. source shipping income and such income is subject to a 4% United States federal income tax, without the benefit of deductions, unless that corporation is entitled to a special tax exemption under the Code which applies to income derived by certain non-United States corporations from the international operations of ships. We believe that we currently qualify for this statutory tax exemption and we have taken, and will continue to take, this position on the Company's United States federal income tax returns.. However, there are several risks that could cause us to become subject to tax on our United States source shipping income. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances as to our tax-exempt status.
 
If we are not entitled to this statutory tax exemption for any taxable year, we would be subject for any such year to a 4% U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income, without the benefit of deductions. The imposition of this tax could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.
 
If the United States Internal Revenue Service were to treat us as a "passive foreign investment company," that could have adverse tax consequences for United States shareholders.

A foreign corporation is treated as a "passive foreign investment company," or PFIC, for United States federal income tax purposes, if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of "passive income" or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation's assets produce or are held for the production of those types of passive income. For purposes of these tests, cash is treated as an asset that produces passive income, and passive income includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. Income derived from the performance of services does not constitute passive income. United States shareholders of a PFIC may be subject to a disadvantageous United States federal income tax regime with respect to the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.
 
We believe that we ceased to be a PFIC beginning with the 2005 taxable year. Based on our current and expected future operations, we believe that we are not currently a PFIC, nor do we anticipate that we will become a PFIC for any future taxable year.  As a result, non-corporate United States shareholders should be eligible to treat dividends paid by us in 2006 and thereafter as "qualified dividend income" which is subject to preferential tax rates.
 
We expect to derive more than 25% of our income each year from our spot chartering or time chartering activities.  We also expect that more than 50% of the value of our assets will be devoted to our spot chartering and time chartering.  Therefore, since we believe that such income will be treated for relevant United States federal income tax purposes as services income, rather than rental income, we have taken, and will continue to take, the position that such income should not constitute passive income, and that the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income, in particular our vessels, should not constitute assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC in any taxable year.
 
 
15

 
There is, however, no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our method of operation. We believe there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and United States Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income rather than rental income for other tax purposes.  However, there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes.  Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept our position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in the nature and extent of our operations.
 
If the IRS or a court of law were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year beginning with the 2005 taxable year, our United States shareholders who owned their shares during such year would face adverse United States federal income tax consequences and certain information reporting obligations. Under the PFIC rules, unless those United States shareholders made or make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such United States shareholders), such United States shareholders would be subject to United States federal income tax at the then highest income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions (i.e., distributions received in a taxable year that are greater than 125% of the average annual distributions received during the shorter of the three preceding taxable years or the United States shareholder's holding period for our common shares) and upon any gain from the disposition of our common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the United States shareholder's holding period of our common shares. In addition, non-corporate United States shareholders would not be eligible to treat dividends paid by us as "qualified dividend income" if we are a PFIC in the taxable year in which such dividends are paid or in the immediately preceding taxable year.
 
Risks Relating to Our Common Shares

Our common share price may be highly volatile and future sales of our common shares could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.
 
The market price of our common shares has historically fluctuated over a wide range and may continue to fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, such as actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results, changes in financial estimates by securities analysts, economic and regulatory trends, general market conditions, rumors and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Since 2008, the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. If the volatility in the market continues or worsens, it could have an adverse affect on the market price of our common shares and impact a potential sale price if holders of our common shares decide to sell their shares.
 
Because we are a foreign corporation, you may not have the same rights that a shareholder in a U.S. corporation may have.
 
We are a Bermuda exempted company. Our memorandum of association, bye-laws and the Companies Act, 1981 of Bermuda (the “Companies Act”), govern our affairs. The Companies Act does not as clearly establish your rights and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors as do statutes and judicial precedent in some U.S. jurisdictions. Therefore, you may have more difficulty in protecting your interests as a shareholder in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a United States jurisdiction. There is a statutory remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act which provides that a shareholder may seek redress in the courts as long as such shareholder can establish that our affairs are being conducted, or have been conducted, in a manner oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some part of the shareholders, including such shareholder.
 
We are incorporated in Bermuda and it may not be possible for our investors to enforce U.S. judgments against us.
 
We are incorporated in the Islands of Bermuda. Substantially all of our assets are located outside the U.S. In addition, most of our directors and officers are non-residents of the U.S., and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. investors to serve process within the U.S. upon us, or our directors and officers or to enforce a judgment against us for civil liabilities in U.S. courts. In addition, you should not assume that courts in the countries in which we are incorporated or where our are located (1) would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us based upon the civil liability provisions of applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws or (2) would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us based on those laws.
 
 
16

 
ITEM 4.
 
A. History and Development of the Company
 
Nordic American Tankers Limited, or the Company, was founded on June 12, 1995 under the name Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited under the laws of the Islands of Bermuda and we maintain our principal offices at LOM Building, 27 Reid Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda. Our telephone number at such address is (441) 292-7202.  We are an international tanker company that currently owns 20 Suezmax tankers that average approximately 156,000 dwt each and our vessels in our fleet are homogenous, interchangeable and should be viewed as "the Nordic American System".  The Company was formed for the purpose of acquiring and chartering three double-hull Suezmax tankers that were built in 1997.  In the autumn of 2004, the Company owned three vessels and at the end of 2012 the Company owned 20 vessels. We expect that the expansion process will continue over time and that more vessels will be added to our fleet.

We describe the “Nordic American System” as follows:

It is essential for Nordic American to have an operating model that is sustainable in both a weak and a strong tanker market, which we believe differentiates Nordic American from other publicly traded tanker companies. The Nordic American System is transparent and predictable. As a general policy, the Company has a conservative risk profile. Our dividend payments are important for our shareholders, and at the same time we recognize the need to expand our fleet under conditions advantageous to the Company.
 
NAT maximizes cash flows by employing all of its vessels in the spot market through the Orion Tanker Pool which increases the efficiency and utilization of the fleet. The spot market gives better earnings than the time charter market over time.
 
Growth is a central element of the Nordic American System.  It is essential that NAT grows accretively, which means that over time our transportation capacity increases more percentagewise than our share count.
 
Nordic American has one type of vessel only - the Suezmax vessel. This type of vessel can carry one million barrels of oil. The Suezmax vessel is highly versatile, able to be utilized on most long-haul trade routes. A homogenous fleet streamlines operating and administration costs, which helps keep our cash-breakeven point low.
 
The valuation of NAT in the stock market should not be based upon net asset value (NAV), a measure that only is linked to the steel value of our ships. NAT has its own ongoing system value with a homogenous fleet.
 
We pay our dividend from cash on hand.  NAT has a cash break-even level of about $12,000 per day per vessel, which we consider low in the industry. The cash break-even rate is the amount of average daily revenue our vessels would need to earn in the spot tanker market in order to cover our vessel operating expenses, cash general and administrative expenses, interest expense and all other cash charges.

In January 2010, the Company issued 4,600,000 common shares at $30.50 per share in a registered transaction. The net proceeds of the offering were used to fund acquisitions and for general corporate purposes.
 
In April 2010, the Company entered into agreements with Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. to build two Suezmax tankers of 158,000 dwt each.  The purchase prices of these two newbuilding vessels are $64.7 million and $64.7 million and we took delivery of the two newbuilding vessels in August 2011 and in November 2011.
 
In August 2010, we did not take delivery of the first of the two newbuilding vessels we agreed to acquire on November 5, 2007 because the vessel in our judgment was not in a deliverable condition as under the Memorandum of Agreement between the Company and the seller. The seller, a subsidiary of First Olsen Ltd, did not agree with the Company and the parties commenced arbitration procedures which took place in London, in October and November 2011. On January 17, 2012, the arbitral tribunal granted the seller some of their legal costs in their final award decision.  We expect that the amount of legal fees of the seller will be approximately $1.2 million and the amount was included in our interim Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011.
 
 
17

 
In October 2010, Nordic Harrier (former Gulf Scandic) was redelivered, from a long-term bareboat charter agreement, to the Company, and went directly into drydock for repair. The drydock period lasted until the end of April 2011. The vessel had not been technically operated according to sound maintenance practices by Gulf Navigation Company LLC, and the vessel's condition on redelivery to us was far below the contractual obligation of the charterer. All drydock expenses were paid during 2011. We have sought compensation for these expenses, but have not been able to reach an agreement with the charterer. The arbitration procedures have started and are expected to be heard in 2013.
 
On June 1, 2011, in connection with our annual general meeting of shareholders held in Bermuda, our amended and restated bye-laws were approved and adopted.  We increased our authorized share capital from 51,200,000 common shares to 90,000,000 common shares, par value $0.01 per share.  As of the date of this annual report, we have 54,825,751 common shares issued and outstanding.  We also changed our legal name to Nordic American Tankers Limited.
 
On August 24, 2011, we took delivery of the Nordic Breeze and on November 8, 2011 we took delivery of the Nordic Zenith.
 
In September 2011, the Company announced the acquisition of the vessel, Nordic Aurora, at the purchase price of $24.5 million.
 
In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager.  This company was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO).  In mid-November, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously within Gemini Tankers LLC.
 
In January 2012, the Company issued 5,500,000 common shares at the price of $15.57 per share in a registered transaction, used to fund future acquisitions and for general corporate purposes.
 
Orion Tankers Ltd. was established as equally owned by us and Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO). In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would withdraw its nine Suezmax tankers from the pool during the fourth quarter of 2012. The withdrawal of these vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012.

In October 2012, we entered into a new $430 million revolving credit facility (the “2012 Credit Facility”). The banking group consists of DNB Bank ASA, Nordea Bank Norge ASA and Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken.  See “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects – Liquidity and Capital Resources -- Our Credit Facilities” below.
 
In November 2012, the Company announced that one of its vessels was detained for a short while in a U.S. port. The vessel was released in early December 2012 and was employed in the spot market.  The Company has been advised by its legal counsel that it will not be prosecuted and is not part of the case.        .
 
Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion Tankers Ltd. at its nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion Tankers Ltd. became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

Effective January 10, 2013, the Company acquired 100% of the shares of Scandic American Shipping Ltd. (the “Manager”) from a company owned by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company Mr. Herbjørn Hansson and his family. On January 10, 2013, the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In addition to gaining full direct control of the Manager’s operations, the Company will no longer be obligated to maintain the Manager’s ownership of the Company’s common shares at 2%.  The restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares issued as per the Management Agreement and the restricted common shares issued to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan was not part of the transaction. Please see section “Information on the Company -- Management Agreement” for further information about the acquisition.

Effective January, 10, 2013 the Board of Directors amended the vesting requirements for the 174,000 shares allocated to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and the vesting requirements were lifted.
 
 
18

 
Effective January, 10, 2013 the Board of Directors amended the management fee. For its services under the Management Agreement, the Manager receives a management fee of $150,000 per annum for the total fleet.

On February 11, 2013, the Company declared a dividend of $0.16 per share in respect of the results for the fourth quarter of 2012, which was paid to shareholders on or about February 13, 2013.

B. Business Overview
 
We are an international tanker company that owns 20 double-hull Suezmax tankers that average approximately 156,000 dwt each. Our Suezmax tankers are interchangeable asset within the Orion Tankers pool because any pool vessel may be offered to the charterer for any voyage.

We chartered all of our vessels in the spot market pursuant to a cooperative arrangement with Gemini Tankers LLC until November 24, 2011.  In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager and our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC. In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would withdraw its nine Suezmax tankers from the pool during the fourth quarter of 2012. Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion Tankers Ltd. at its nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion Tankers Ltd. became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
 
OUR FLEET
 
Our current fleet consists of 20 double-hull Suezmax tankers and all of our vessels are employed in the spot market pursuant to our cooperative arrangement with Orion Tankers Ltd. The vessels are considered homogenous and interchangeable as they have approximately the same freight capacity and ability to transport the same type of cargoes.
 
Vessel
Yard
Built
Deadweight Tons
Delivered to NAT
         
Nordic Harrier
Samsung
1997
151,459
August 1997
Nordic Hawk
Samsung
1997
151,475
October 1997
Nordic Hunter
Samsung
1997
151,401
December 1997
Nordic Voyager
Dalian New
1997
149,591
November 2004
Nordic Fighter
Hyundai
1998
153,328
March 2005
Nordic Freedom
Daewoo
2005
159,331
March 2005
Nordic Discovery
Hyundai
1998
153,328
August 2005
Nordic Saturn
Daewoo
1998
157,331
November 2005
Nordic Jupiter
Daewoo
1998
157,411
April 2006
Nordic Moon
Samsung
2002
160,305
November 2006
Nordic Apollo
Samsung
2003
159,998
November 2006
Nordic Cosmos
Samsung
2003
159,999
December 2006
Nordic Sprite
Samsung
1999
147,188
February 2009
Nordic Grace
Hyundai
2002
149,921
July 2009
Nordic Mistral
Hyundai
2002
164,236
November 2009
Nordic Passat
Hyundai
2002
164,274
March 2010
Nordic Vega
Bohai
2010
163,940
December 2010
Nordic Breeze
Samsung
2011
158,597
August 2011
Nordic Aurora
Samsung
1999
147,262
September 2011
Nordic Zenith
Samsung
2011
158,645
November 2011
 
OUR CHARTERS
 
It is our policy to operate our vessels either in the spot market or on short term time charters. The spot market gives better earnings than the time charter market over time.
 
 
19

 
We currently operate all of our 20 vessels in the spot market through Orion Tankers pool, although we may consider charters at fixed rates depending on market conditions.
 
Spot Market
 
Spot Charters: Tankers operating in the spot market are typically chartered for a single voyage which may last up to several weeks. Under a voyage charter, revenue is generated from freight billing, as we are responsible for paying voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. When our tankers are operating on spot charters, the vessels are traded fully at the risk and reward of the Company. For vessels operating in the spot market other than through the pool (described below), the vessels will be operated by the pool manager. Under this type of employment, the vessel’s revenues are not included in the profit sharing of the participating vessels in the pool. The Company considers it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the Statements of Operations. See Note 2 to our audited financial statements for further information concerning our accounting policies.
 
During 2012, we temporarily operated six vessels in the spot market through the pool manager of the cooperative arrangements.

Cooperative Arrangements: The pool manager of the cooperative arrangements has the responsibility for the commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker (fuel oil) for the vessels. Revenue is generated from freight billing, as the pool manager is responsible for paying voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. The pool manager employs the vessels in the pool under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or contract of carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. Each participant in the pool is required to, in relation to each of its vessels, maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and to defined technical and operational standards and obtain and maintain the required number of vettings. The owners of the participating vessels remain responsible for the technical costs including, crewing, insurance, repair and maintenance, financing and technical management of their vessels. The revenues, less voyage expenses, or net pool earnings of all of the vessels are aggregated and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the period.

Until June 30, 2010, Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO) and the private Stena Group of Sweden provided commercial management services for all of the Company`s vessels trading in the spot market.  From July 1, 2010 until November 2011, we placed all of our vessels in a spot market cooperation with Gemini Tankers LLC, where Frontline Ltd. and Teekay Corporation (NYSE: TK), together with us were the main owners of the participating vessels.

In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager and was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. In mid-November 2011, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC. In September 2012, it was announced that the Company will acquire Frontline`s remaining interest in Orion Tankers Ltd. and that Frontline would withdraw its nine Suezmax vessels from the Orion Tankers pool in the fourth quarter of 2012.  The withdrawal of these vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012, following which the Orion Tankers pool consists of 20 Suezmax vessels, all owned by the Company.  The Orion Tankers’ pool arrangement is managed and will continue to be operated by Orion Tankers Ltd. Orion Tankers Ltd. was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd. until January 1, 2013. Effective January 2, 2013 the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion Tankers Ltd.

Up and until November 5, 2012, the date of which Frontline completed the withdrawal all of its vessel in the Orion Tanker pool, the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a net basis in its Statements of Operations. Effective November 5, 2012 the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in its Statement of Operations. See Note 2 to our audited financial statement.
 
If a vessel does not temporarily comply with the pool requirements, the vessel will continue to be operated in the spot market by the pool manager, as described above under "Spot Charters."
 
Time Charters
 
 
20

 
Under a time charter, the charterer pays for the voyage expenses, such as port, canal and fuel costs, while the shipowner pays for vessel operating expenses, including, among other costs, crew costs, provisions, deck and engine stores, lubricating oil, insurance, maintenance and repairs and costs relating to a vessel’s intermediate and special surveys. No vessels were employed on time charters during 2012, 2011 or 2010.
 
Bareboat Charters
 
Under a bareboat charter, the charterer is responsible for operating and maintaining the vessel and for paying all operating costs and expenses with respect to the vessel.

No vessels were employed on bareboat charters during 2012 and 2011. During 2010, two vessels were employed on bareboat charters that expired in June 2010, and October 2010, respectively.
 
Management Agreement
 
In June 2004, the Company entered into a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) with Scandic American Shipping Ltd. (the “Manager”). Under the Management Agreement, the Manager has the daily, administrative, commercial and operational responsibility for our vessels and is generally required to manage our day-to-day business according to our objectives and policies as established and directed by our Board of Directors. All decisions of a material nature concerning our business are made by the Board of Directors. Agreement shall terminate on the date which is ten years from the calendar date, so that the remaining term of the Management Agreement shall always be ten years unless terminated earlier in accordance with its terms, essentially related to non-performance or negligence by the Manager.
 
For its services under the Management Agreement, the Manager receives a management fee of $150,000 per annum for the total fleet and is reimbursed for all of its costs incurred in connection with its services. The management fee was reduced from $500,000 to $150,000 per annum effective January 10, 2013. The management fee was increased from $350,000 to $500,000 per annum effective December 1, 2011 up and until January 10, 2013. In order to align the Manager’s interests with those of the Company, the Company has issued to the Manager restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares as per the Management Agreement. Subsequent to the acquisition of the manager, effective January 10, 2013, the Management Agreement was amended and the 2% provision is no longer part of the agreement. The annual fee will be eliminated in the consolidated financial statements from 2013 onwards.
 
In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a new equity incentive plan, which we refer to as the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, under which a maximum of 400,000 common shares were reserved for issuance. In 2012, the Company repurchased at par value, 8,500 unvested restricted common shares, and these restricted common shares are held as treasury shares. As of December 31, 2012, a total number of 391,500 restricted common shares that are subject to vesting have been allocated among 21 persons employed in the management of the Company, the Manager and the members of the Board of Directors. The holders of the restricted shares are entitled to voting rights as well as to receive dividends paid during the vesting period.

Effective January 10, 2013, the Company acquired 100% of the shares of the Manager from a company owned by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company Mr. Herbjørn Hansson and his immediate family, after which the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

Under the Management Agreement, the Manager pays, and receives reimbursement from us, for our administrative expenses including such items as:
 
 
all costs and expenses incurred on our behalf, including operating expenses and other costs for vessels that are chartered out on time charters or traded in the spot market and for monitoring the condition of our vessel that is operating under bareboat charter,
 
 
executive officer and staff salaries,
 
 
administrative expenses, including, among others, for third party public relations, insurance, franchise fees and registrars' fees,
 
 
21

 
 
all premiums for insurance of any nature, including directors' and officers' liability insurance and general liability insurance,
 
 
brokerage commissions payable by us on the gross charter hire received in connection with the charters,

 
directors' fees and meeting expenses,
 
 
audit fees,
 
 
other expenses approved by the Board of the Directors and
 
 
attorneys' fees and expenses, incurred on our behalf in connection with (a) any litigation commenced by or against us or (b) any claim or investigation by any governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory authority involving us.
 
We have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold the Manager and its affiliates (other than us and our subsidiaries that we may form in the future), officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all loss, claim, damage, liability, cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the Manager or any such affiliates based upon a claim by or liability to a third party arising out of the operation of our business, unless due to the Manager's or such affiliates' fraud or dishonesty.
 
Commercial and Technical Management Agreements
 
The Company has outsourced the commercial and technical management of its vessels to third-party companies operating under the supervision of the Manager.  The compensation under the commercial and technical management agreements is in accordance with industry standards.
 
Commercial management agreements:  Until June 30, 2010, Frontline Ltd. and the private Stena Group of Sweden provided commercial management services for all the Company`s vessels trading in the spot market. In March 2010 the Company announced that it decided to place all of its vessels in a spot market cooperation with Gemini Tankers LLC, where Frontline Ltd. and Teekay Corporation, together with us were the main owners of the participating vessels. The Gemini Tankers LLC, cooperative arrangement commenced on July 1, 2010.
 
In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager. This company was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd.  In mid-November 2011, our vessels were transferred from the Gemini Tankers LLC arrangement to the Orion Tankers pool upon completion of previously fixed charters within Gemini Tankers LLC. Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion Tankers Ltd. at its nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion Tankers Ltd. became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
 
Technical management agreements: As of December 31, 2012, the ship management firm of V.Ships Norway AS or V.Ships provides the technical management for 15 of the Company's vessels. The ship management firm of Colombia Shipmanagement Ltd, Cyprus provides the technical management for four of the Company's vessels. The ship management firm Hellespont Ship Management GmbH & Co KG, Germany provides the technical management for one of the Company's vessels.
 
Share-based Compensation Plan
 
Management Agreement: In order to align the Manager’s interests with those of the Company, the Company has issued to the Manager restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares. Any time additional common shares were issued, the Manager received restricted common shares in order to maintain the number of common shares issued to the Manager at 2% of our total outstanding common shares. Subsequent to the acquisition of the Manager effective January 10, 2013, the Management Agreement was amended and the 2% provision is no longer part of the agreement.
 
 
22

 
2011 Equity Incentive Plan: In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a new incentive plan under which a maximum of 400,000 common shares were reserved for issuance. A total of 400,000 restricted common shares that are subject to vesting were allocated among 23 persons employed in the management of the Company, the Manager and the members of the Board. The vesting period is four-year cliff vesting period for 326,000 shares and five-year cliff vesting period for 74,000 shares, that is, none of these shares may be sold during the first four or five years after grant, as applicable, and the shares are forfeited if the grantee discontinues to work for the  Company  before that time.  The holders of the restricted shares are entitled to voting rights as well as receive dividends paid during the vesting period. The Board considers this arrangement to be in the best interests of the Company.

In 2012, the Company repurchased at par value 8,500 unvested restricted common shares. These restricted common shares are held as treasury shares. As of December 31, 2012, a total number of 391,500 unvested restricted common shares were allocated under the plan.

Effective January, 10, 2013 the Board of Directors amended the vesting requirements for the 174,000 shares allocated to the Manager under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and the vesting requirements were lifted.

The International Tanker Market
 
International seaborne oil and petroleum products transportation services are mainly provided by two types of operators: major oil company captive fleets (both private and state-owned) and independent shipowner fleets.  Both types of operators transport oil under short-term contracts (including single-voyage "spot charters") and long-term time charters with oil companies, oil traders, large oil consumers, petroleum product producers and government agencies.  The oil companies own, or control through long-term time charters, approximately one third of the current world tanker capacity, while independent companies own or control the balance of the fleet.  The oil companies use their fleets not only to transport their own oil, but also to transport oil for third-party charterers in direct competition with independent owners and operators in the tanker charter market.
 
The current international financial crisis is affecting the international tanker market. It is expected that the global fleet will increase during 2013 because of the present order book. However, some shipping companies are now facing challenges in financing their large newbuilding programs, as shipping banks are more restrictive than before in granting credit. Assuming current scrapping levels, it can be assumed that the Suezmax fleet may contract in 2014 and 2015, given the current order book. The current financial upheaval may delay deliveries of newbuildings and may also lead to the cancellation of newbuilding orders, and there have been reports of cancellations of tanker newbuildings from certain yards. Shipping companies with high debt or other financial commitments may be unable to continue servicing their debt, which could lead to foreclosure on vessels. A reduction in available ship finance is curtailing any significant growth to the order book. Only 3 Suezmax tankers were ordered in 2012.
 
The oil transportation industry has historically been subject to regulation by national authorities and through international conventions.  Over recent years, however, an environmental protection regime has evolved which has a significant impact on the operations of participants in the industry in the form of increasingly more stringent inspection requirements, closer monitoring of pollution-related events, and generally higher costs and potential liabilities for the owners and operators of tankers.
 
In order to benefit from economies of scale, tanker charterers will typically charter the largest possible vessel to transport oil or products, consistent with port and canal dimensional restrictions and optimal cargo lot sizes.  A tanker's carrying capacity is measured in deadweight tons, or dwt, which is the amount of crude oil measured in metric tons that the vessel is capable of loading.  ULCCs and VLCCs typically transport crude oil in long-haul trades, such as from the Arabian Gulf to Rotterdam via the Cape of Good Hope.  Suezmax tankers also engage in long-haul crude oil trades as well as in medium-haul crude oil trades, such as from the Mediterian and Arabian Gulf towards the Far East, i.e. China, India and other emerging economies in Asia that absorb the shortfall from the traditional routes, from  West Africa to the East Coast of the United States used to represent.   Aframax-size vessels generally engage in both medium-and short-haul trades of less than 1,500 miles and carry crude oil or petroleum products.  Smaller tankers mostly transport petroleum products in short-haul to medium-haul trades.
 
 
23

 
THE 2012 TANKER MARKET (Source: Fearnleys)

One year ago we wrote that 2011 was the worst year for the freight market for all types and sizes of tankers in almost a decade. Now, looking back on 2012, we cannot state that 2012 ended much better. The first half of the year periodically showed earnings that could be deemed close to acceptable, but the second half was very weak. Bunkers remained high, and based on a basket of selected main bunkering places, prices rose approximately 3% compared to 2011.

As in 2011, we have observed periods in which tanker trades have yielded negative results on a time charter equivalent basis; however, Suezmax earnings have been positive for all major trading routes. Typically, time charter equivalents are calculated on the basis of normal service speed and corresponding bunker consumption. In 2011, we observed that earnings for the largest tankers remained in positive territory at optimized speed and consumption. This year, however, this has not been the case.

The oil tanker fleet is generally divided into five major categories of vessels, based on carrying capacity and the types of cargoes carried. A tanker’s carrying capacity is measured in deadweight tons, or dwt, which is the amount of crude oil measured in metric tons that the vessel is capable of loading. In the single voyage market the Very Large Crude Carrier, (“VLCC”), whose carrying capacity ranges from 200,000 dwt to 320,000 dwt, reached an average of about $10,000 per day during 2012. This was significantly higher than in 2011, but still only at a level covering operational expenses. Suezmaxes, whose carrying capacity ranges from 120,000 dwt to 200,000 dwt, achieved $16,000 per day during the same period, down from $16,200 in the year 2011. Corresponding rates for Aframaxes, whose carrying capacity ranges from 80,000 dwt to 120,000 dwt, were about $9,500 per day compared with $10,600 per day in the year 2011. Despite an improvement in VLCC earnings, 2012 was even more challenging for owners than the weak tanker market in the year 2011. The earnings estimates used in this section are based on service speed and consumption. As most owners currently operate their vessels as economically as possible, i.e., by slow steaming, actual earnings are somewhat higher than those above. Earnings have periodically stayed far below operating costs resulting in substantial operating losses for many companies. Suezmax tankers have generally generated earnings above operating costs. Market values of modern tankers declined on average about 18% over 2012. Suezmax values declined slightly less than the average, with a decline of about 14%.

Preliminary estimates for seaborne crude oil trade, measured in tonne-miles, indicate an increase of about 3.9% in 2012 compared to 2011. Measured by volume, the increase is smaller and estimated to about 0.7%, indicating an increase in average distances. Crude oil imports to the U.S. showed another year of decrease and were down 3.7% in 2011. Based on 10 months seaborne trade statistics, demand for transportation during this period increased by 2.3% whereas seaborne imports were down 8.3% compared to the first 10 months of 2011. This indicates increased average distances in combination with increased over land imports from Canada. In East Asia, data from the first nine months of 2012 show that Chinese crude oil imports increased by about 6.6% in the same period in 2011. Tonne-miles increased by 10% for the period 2012. Combined Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese crude imports rose by about 4.2%, and tonne-miles generating a tonne-mile increase of about 7%.

In 2012, a total of 49 VLCCs and 47 Suezmax tankers have been delivered from yards. The Suezmax fleet is estimated to have expanded by 6.6% and the VLCC fleet by 6.6% (both measured by deadweight tons) in 2012. This is slightly lower than our expectations one year ago. In total, net tanker fleet growth in 2012 was about 4.1%.

The sale and purchase market for tankers, measured by the number of transactions, was similar to the 2011 market. About 210 tankers were sold in 2012 compared to about 225 in 2011. Prices continued to decrease across the tanker market. Since the end of 2011, prices have declined between 3% and 26% for modern units.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), according to its December 2012 report, expects global demand for oil to increase by an estimated 1.0% in 2013. With the continued financial turmoil, especially in Europe, and continued challenging times in the U.S. (despite falling unemployment and increased activity in the industry and construction sector) Fearnleys is quite uncertain about market developments for tankers in 2013. In addition, U.S. domestic crude oil production is expected to increase substantially in 2013 limiting demand for imports. It seems that Chinese economic activity is increasing following measures in 2011 and 2012 combating inflationary tendencies and that crude oil imports may increase at a higher pace than in 2012.
 
 
24

 
The Tanker Market 2013
 
The tanker market in 1q2013 has been in line with the second half of 2012. Increased traffic from West Africa to China has resulted in Suezmaxes outperforming VLCC. There was a small spike in rates early in the quarter but the positive sentiment quickly reversed. The current freight environment in the beginning of second quarter may be characterized as stable, however being subject to volatility. The Company does not predict future spot rates.

Environmental and Other Regulation
 
Government laws and regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels.  We are subject to various international conventions, laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modification and implementation costs.
 
A variety of government, quasi-governmental and private organizations subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections.  These organizations include the local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters or equivalent entities, classification societies, relevant flag state (country of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators and oil companies.  Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for the operation of our vessels.  Our failure to maintain necessary permits, licenses, certificates or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet, or lead to the invalidation or reduction of our insurance coverage.
 
We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry.  Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to stricter environmental standards.  We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations.  We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations; however, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly strict requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels.  In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.
 
International Maritime Organization
 
The IMO is the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships.  The IMO has adopted several international conventions that regulate the international shipping industry, including but not limited to the CLC, the Bunker Convention, and MARPOL. MARPOL is broken into six Annexes, each of which establishes environmental standards relating to different sources of pollution: Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried, in bulk, in liquid or packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, adopted by the IMO in September of 1997, relates to air emissions.
 
Air Emissions
 
In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution .  Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on nitrogen oxide emissions from ships whose diesel engines were constructed (or underwent major conversions) on or after January 1, 2000.  It also prohibits "deliberate emissions" of "ozone depleting substances," defined to include certain halons and chlorofluorocarbons.  "Deliberate emissions" are not limited to times when the ship is at sea; they can for example include discharges occurring in the course of the ship's repair and maintenance.  Emissions of "volatile organic compounds" from certain tankers, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) are also prohibited.  Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil (see below).
 
 
25

 
The IMO's Maritime Environment Protection Committee, or MEPC, adopted amendments to Annex VI on October 10, 2008, which entered into force on July 1, 2010.  The amended Annex VI 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.  As of January 1, 2012, the amended Annex VI requires that fuel oil contain no more than 3.50% sulfur (from the current 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 "Emission Control Areas" ("ECAs").  By July 1, 2010, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 1.0% (from 1.50%), which is further reduced to 0.10% on January 1, 2015.  Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs.  Currently, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been so designated.  Effective August 1, 2012, certain coastal areas of North America were designated ECAs, as will (effective January 1, 2014), the United States Caribbean Sea.  If other ECAs are approved by the IMO or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the EPA or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

As of January 1, 2013 MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. It makes the Energy Efficient Design Index (EEDI) apply to all new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) apply to all ships.
 
Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in late 2009.
 
Safety Management System Requirements
 
The IMO also adopted SOLAS, and the International Convention on Load Lines, or LL, which impose a variety of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL standards. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) was recently amended and the amendments are expected to go into effect on June 8, 2015. The amendments alter the limits of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim and a property claim against ship owners.
 
Our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements contained in the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO under Chapter IX of SOLAS. The ISM Code requires the owner of a vessel, or any person who has taken responsibility for operation of a vessel, to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies.  We rely upon the safety management system that has been developed for our vessels for compliance with the ISM Code.
 
The ISM Code requires that vessel operators also obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel's management with code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. We have obtained documents of compliance for its offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the ISM Code. These documents of compliance and safety management certificates are renewed as required.
 
Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the ship owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in, or invalidation of, available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports.
 
Pollution Control and Liability Requirements
 
IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatory nations to such conventions. For example, many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, CLC, as amended by different Protocol in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000. Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability, expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so that the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s intentional or reckless act or omission where the ship owner knew pollution damage would probably result.  The CLC requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner's liability for a single incident. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.
 
 
26

 
The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, to impose strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in ship's bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.
 
In addition, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004. The BWM Convention's implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. To date, there has not been sufficient adoption of this standard for it to take force.  However, Panama may adopt this standard in the relatively near future, which would be sufficient for it to take force.  Upon entry into force of the BWM Convention, mid-ocean ballast exchange would be mandatory. Vessels would be required to be equipped with a ballast water treatment system that meets mandatory concentration limits not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of the vessel in 2014, for vessels with ballast water capacity of 1500-5000 cubic meters, or after such date in 2016, for vessels with ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 cubic meters. If mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers. Although we do not believe that the costs of compliance with a mandatory mid-ocean ballast exchange would be material, it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such a requirement on our operations.
 
The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.
 
U.S. Regulations
 
The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all "owners and operators" whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S. territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define "owner or operator" in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel.  Accordingly, both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.
 
Under OPA, vessel owners and operators are "responsible parties" and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels.  OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:
 
 
injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;
 
 
injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;
 
 
net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees or net profit revenues resulting from injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property, or natural resources;
 
 
27

 
 
loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;
 
 
lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or natural resources; and
 
 
net cost of increased or additional public services necessitated by removal activities following a discharge of oil, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and loss of subsistence use of natural resources.
 
OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs.  Effective July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17.088 million for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation), and our fleet is entirely composed of vessels of this size class. These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship), or a responsible party's gross negligence or willful misconduct.  The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident where the responsibility party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.
 
CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damage for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing same, and health assessments or health effects studies.  There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war.  Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel.  These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations.  The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.
 
OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We have provided such evidence and received certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard's for each of our vessels as required to have one.
 
OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, however, in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining tanker owners' responsibilities under these laws.
 
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA.  For example, effective on August 15, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practice. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes.
 
We expect to maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
 
28

 
The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. Furthermore, many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law.
 
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has enacted rules requiring a permit regulating ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters under the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or VGP. For a new vessel delivered to an owner or operator after September 19, 2009 to be covered by the VGP, the owner must submit a Notice of Intent, or NOI, at least 30 days before the vessel operates in United States waters. The EPA has proposed a draft 2013 VGP to replace the current VGP upon its expiration on December 19, 2013. The VGP focuses on authorizing discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and the new permit is expected to contain numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in US waters, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants.
 
U.S. Coast Guard regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in U.S. waters.  On June 21, 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard implemented revised regulations on ballast water management by establishing standards on the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships in U.S. waters.  The revised ballast water standards are consistent with those adopted by the IMO in 2004.
 
Compliance with the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard regulations could require the installation of certain engineering equipment and water treatment systems to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.
 
European Union Regulations
 
In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water.  Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties.  Member States were required to enact laws or regulations to comply with the directive by the end of 2010.  Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims.
 
Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On January 1, 2013 two new sets of mandatory requirements to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships, that MEPC adopted in July 2011, entered into force. Currently operating ships will be required to develop SEEMPs, and minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile will apply to new ships. These requirements could cause us to incur additional compliance costs. The IMO is planning to implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at an upcoming MEPC session. The European Union has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from marine vessels, and in January 2012 the European Commission launched a public consultation on possible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. In the United States, the EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety and has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and large stationary sources. Although the mobile source emissions regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, such regulation of vessels is foreseeable, and the EPA has in recent years received petitions from the California Attorney General and various environmental groups seeking such regulation. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.
 
 
29

 
International Labour Organization
 
The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a specialized agency of the UN with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (MLC 2006). A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. The MLC 2006 will enter into force one year after 30 countries with a minimum of 33% of the world's tonnage have ratified it. On August 20, 2012, the required number of countries was met and MLC 2006 is expected to come into force on August 20, 2013. MLC 2006 will require us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements.
 
Vessel Security Regulations
 
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security.  In 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or the MTSA, came into effect, and to implement certain portions of the MTSA the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  The regulations also impose requirements on certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 
Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security.  The new Chapter V became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, and mandates compliance with the ISPS Code.  The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism.  Amendments to SOLAS Chapter VII, made mandatory in 2004, apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code ("IMDG Code").
 
To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state.  Among the various requirements are:
 
 
on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship's identity, position, course, speed and navigational status;
 
 
on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the authorities on shore;
 
 
the development of vessel security plans;
 
 
ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel's hull;
 
 
a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history, including the name of the ship, the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and
 
 
compliance with flag state security certification requirements.
 
Ships operating without a valid certificate, may be detained at port until an ISSC is obtained, or may be expelled from port, or refused entry at port.
 
The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels that have on board a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel's compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code.  We have implemented the various security measures addressed by MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code, and our fleet is in compliance with applicable security requirements.
 
Inspection by Classification Societies
 
 
30

 
Every seagoing vessel must be "classed" by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is ''in class,'' signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel's country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.
 
The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.
 
For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery, including the electrical plant, and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:
 
Annual Surveys: For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and the machinery, including the electrical plant, and where applicable for special equipment classed, within three months before or after each anniversary date of the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.
 
Intermediate Surveys: Extended annual surveys are referred to as intermediate surveys and typically are conducted two and one-half years after commissioning and each class renewal.  Intermediate surveys are to be carried out at or between the occasion of the second or third annual survey.
 
Class Renewal Surveys: Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out for the ship's hull, machinery, including the electrical plant, and for any special equipment classed, at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull.  At the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to determine the thickness of the steel structures.  Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals.  Substantial amounts of money may have to be spent for steel renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear.  In lieu of the special survey every five years, a vessel owner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel's hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle.
 
At an owner's application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.
 
All areas subject to survey as defined by the classification society are required to be surveyed at least once per class period, unless shorter intervals between surveys are prescribed elsewhere. The period between two subsequent surveys of each area must not exceed five years.
 
Most vessel are also dry-docked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs related to inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a ''recommendation'' or “Condition of Class” or “Memo to Owners” which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.
Any Condition of Class issued by the surveyor will trigger a trading restriction on the vessel as the charterers will not accept a vessel with a CC.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as "in class" by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). The IACS issued draft harmonized Common Structure Rules, that align with IMO goal standards, for industry review in 2012 and it expects them to be adopted in Winter 2013. All our vessels are certified as being "in class" by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, American Bureau of Shipping, Det norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd. All new and secondhand vessels that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery under our standard contracts.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance
 
The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, labor strikes and piracy attack. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the United States exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for ship owners and operators trading in the United States market. Furthermore, while we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, any specific claim may not be paid, and we may not always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.
 
 
31

 
Hull and Machinery Insurance
 
We have obtained marine hull and machinery and war risk insurance, which include the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of the vessels in our fleet. The vessels in our fleet are each covered up to at least fair market value, with deductibles of $350,000 per vessel per incident. We also arranged increased value coverage for each vessel. Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able recover for amounts not recoverable under the hull and machinery policy by reason of any under-insurance.
 
Protection and Indemnity Insurance
 
Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, which covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances, and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal, with deductibles of $100,000 per vessel per incident. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations, or "clubs." Our coverage, except for pollution, is unlimited.
 
Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1 billion per vessel per incident. The thirteen P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world's commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association's liabilities. Each P&I Association has capped its exposure to this pooling agreement at $5.4 billion. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on its claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations, and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.
 
Competition

As described in the section “History and Development of the Company” we, operate "the Nordic American System" of 20 homogenous Suezmax tankers in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on our reputation as an operator.

Since July 1, 2010 and until mid-November 2011, our vessels were employed in a spot market arrangement with Gemini Tankers LLC, of where Frontline Ltd., Teekay Corporation, and we were the main owners of the participating vessels. In November 2011, the Orion Tankers pool was established, with Orion Tankers Ltd. as pool manager. Orion Tankers Ltd. was owned equally by us and Frontline Ltd., and therefore a related party of the Company as of December 31, 2012. Effective January 2, 2013, the Company acquired Frontline`s shares in Orion Tankers Ltd. at its nominal book value as of December 31, 2012, after which Orion Tankers Ltd. became wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
 
We currently operate all of our vessels in spot market through Orion Tankers pool. This arrangement is managed and operated by Orion Tankers Ltd as pool manager. The pool manager has the responsibility for the commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker (fuel oil) for the vessels. From time to time, we may also arrange our time charters and voyage charters in the spot market through the use of brokers, who negotiate the terms of the charters based on market conditions. We compete primarily with owners of tankers in the Suezmax class size. Ownership of tankers is highly fragmented.
 
Permits and Authorizations
 
We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required depend upon several factors, including the commodity transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel's crew and the age of a vessel. We have been able to obtain all permits, licenses and certificates currently required to permit our vessels to operate. Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase our cost of doing business.
 
 
32

 
Seasonality
 
Historically, oil trade and, therefore, charter rates increased in the winter months and eased in the summer months as demand for oil in the Northern Hemisphere rose in colder weather and fell in warmer weather. The tanker industry, in general, has become less dependent on the seasonal transport of heating oil than a decade ago as new uses for oil and oil products have developed, spreading consumption more evenly over the year. This is most apparent from the higher seasonal demand during the summer months due to energy requirements for air conditioning and motor vehicles.
 
C. Organizational Structure
 
Since May 30, 2003, Scandic American Shipping Ltd. has acted as the Company's Manager, and provides such services pursuant to the Management Agreement.  The Management Agreement was amended on October 12, 2004 to further align the Manager's interests with those of the Company as a shareholder of the Company.  On January 10, 2013, the Manager became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. See Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—The Management Agreement.
 
D. Property, Plants and Equipment
 
See Items 4–Information on the Company–Business Overview–Our Fleet, for a description of our vessels. The vessels are mortgaged as collateral under the 2012 Credit Facility.
 
ITEM 4A.
 
None.
 
ITEM 5.
 
The following management's discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our historical financial statements and their notes included elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, such as those set forth in the section entitled "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this annual report.
 
A. Operating Results
 
We present our Statement of Operations using voyage revenues and voyage expenses. During the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, all of our vessels were employed in the spot market. As of December 31, 2010 all of our vessels were employed in the spot market, but during 2010 two of our vessels were employed on bareboat charters that expired in June 2010, and October 2010, respectively.
 
Under a spot charter, revenue is generated from freight billing and is included in voyage revenue. Under a spot charter, the vessel owner pays all vessel voyage expenses and these expenses are included in voyage expenses. The Company considers it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the Statements of Operations.
 
Our homogenous and interchangeable fleet is operated by Orion Tankers pool and the pool manager employs the vessels under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or contract of carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. The fleet is considered homogenous in terms of freight capacity and the types of cargoes that can be transported and the vessels are interchangeable as the Pool Manager can nominate any vessel to a specific charterer for a specific voyage.  The voyage revenues less voyage expenses of all of the vessels in the pool are aggregated and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the period. From November 2011 through November 5, 2012, the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a net basis in its Statements of Operations. In September 2012, it was agreed that Frontline would withdraw its nine Suezmax tankers from the Orion Tankers pool during the fourth quarter of 2012. The withdrawal of these vessels was completed effective November 5, 2012, after which all vessels in the Orion Tankers pool are owned by the Company. The Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of cooperative arrangement on a gross basis in the Statement of Operations effective as from November 5, 2012.
 
 
33

 
For further information, see "Item 4.B—Business Overview—Our Charters."

Since the amount of voyage expenses that we incur for a charter depends on the type of the charter, we use net voyage revenues to provide comparability among the different types of charters. Management believes that net voyage revenue, a non-GAAP financial measure, provides more meaningful disclosure than voyage revenues, the most directly comparable financial measure under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or US GAAP because it enables us to compare the profitability of our vessels which are employed under bareboat charters, spot related time charters and spot charters. Net voyage revenues divided by the number of days on the charter provides the Time Charter Equivalent (TCE) Rate. For bareboat charters, vessel voyage expenses must be added in order to calculate TCE rates. Net voyage revenues and TCE rates are widely used by investors and analysts in the tanker shipping industry for comparing the financial performance of companies and for preparing industry averages. We believe that our method of calculating net voyage revenue is consistent with industry standards. The following table reconciles our net voyage revenues to voyage revenues.
 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
 
 
 
Year Ended December
31,
 
 
 
 
All figures in USD '000
 
2012
 
 
2011
 
 
Variance
 
Voyage Revenue
 
 
130,682
 
 
 
94,787
 
 
 
37.9
%
Voyage Expenses
 
 
(38,670
)
 
 
(14,921
)
 
 
(159.2)
%
Net Voyage Revenues
 
 
92,012
 
 
 
79,866
 
 
 
15.2
%
Vessel Operating Expenses
 
 
(63,965
)
 
 
(54,859
)
 
 
(16.6)
%
General and Administrative Expenses
 
 
(14,700
)
 
 
(15,394
)
 
 
4.5
%
Depreciation Expenses
 
 
(69,219
)
 
 
(64,626
)
 
 
(7.1)
%
Impairment of Vessel
   
(12,030
)
   
-
     
-
 
Loss on Contract
 
 
-
 
 
 
(16,200
)
 
 
-
 
Net Operating (Loss) Income
 
 
(67,902
)
 
 
(71,213
)
 
 
 4.7
%
Interest Income
 
 
357
 
 
 
1,187
 
 
 
(69.9)
%
Interest Expenses
 
 
(5,854
)
 
 
(2,130
)
 
 
(174.8)
%
Other Financial Income (Expenses)
 
 
207
 
 
 
(142
)
 
 
245.8
%
Net (Loss) Income
 
 
(73,192
)
 
 
(72,298
)
 
 
(1.23)
%
 
 
 
Year Ended December
31,
 
 
 
 
All figures in USD '000
 
2012
 
 
2011
 
 
Variance
 
Voyage Revenue  –  net pool earnings
 
 
77,287
 
 
 
76,618
 
 
 
0.9
%
Voyage Revenue – gross freight
 
 
53,395
 
 
 
18,169
 
 
 
 193.9
%
Total Voyage Revenue
 
 
130,682
 
 
 
94,787
 
 
 
37.9
%
Less Voyage expenses – gross
 
 
(38,670
)
 
 
(14,921
)
 
 
(159.2)
%
Total TCE revenue
 
 
92,012
 
 
 
79,866
 
 
 
15.2
%
Vessel Calendar Days (1)
 
 
7,320
 
 
 
6,367
 
 
 
15.0
%
Less off-hire days (2)
 
 
555
 
 
 
116
 
 
 
378.4
%
Total TCE days
 
 
6,765
 
 
 
6,251
 
 
 
8.2
%
TCE Rate per day (3)
 
$
13,601
 
 
$
12,777
 
 
 
6.4
%
Total Days – vessel operating expenses
 
 
7,320
 
 
 
6,370
 
 
 
14.9
%
 
(1)
Vessel Calendar Days is the total number of days the vessels were in our fleet.
(2)
The Nordic Harrier (former Gulf Scandic) was redelivered from a bareboat charter in October 2010 and went directly into drydock for repairs. The drydock period was completed in late April 2011 and the vessel was employed in the spot market pursuant to cooperative arrangements on May 1, 2011. The calendar days and the off-hire days in connection with the drydock period of the Nordic Harrier are not included in this table because the vessel had not operated in the spot market prior to May 1, 2011 and as a result, the number of calendar and off-hire days would not have an impact on the comparison of TCE rate per day.
 
 
34

 
(3)
Time Charter Equivalent, (“TCE”), results from Total TCE revenue divided by Total TCE days.
 
Voyage revenue was $130.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $94.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 37.9%. The increase in voyage revenue was primarily a result of changes to the presentation of net voyage revenues from cooperative arrangements from net basis presentation to gross basis presentation, effective as of November 5, 2012, as of which date the Orion Tankers pool consisted only of vessels owned by the Company.

Voyage expenses were $38.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 159.2%. The increase in voyage expenses was primarily a result of changes to the presentation of net voyage revenues from cooperative arrangements from net basis presentation to gross basis presentation, effective as of November 5, 2012, as of which date the Orion Tankers pool consisted only of vessel owned by the Company. As of November 5, 2012 voyage expenses consisted of fuel, port charges and commissions from all our vessels operated in the spot market.
 
Net voyage revenues were $92.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $79.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 15.2%. The increase in net voyage revenues was primarily a result of an increase in revenue days of 8.2%, due to revenue days for the full year in 2012 for the three vessels delivered in 2011, and due to revenue days for the full year in 2012 for the Nordic Harrier which was employed in the spot market pursuant to a cooperative arrangement on May 1, 2011.The increase in net voyage revenues was also the result of an increase in the spot market rates for the period. Average TCE rate was $13,601 for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $12,777 for the year ended December 31, 2011, representing an increase of 6.5%. The revenue days consist of vessel calendar days less vessel off-hire days. The increase in off hire days to 555 days for the year ended December 31, 2012 from 116 days for the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily the result of planned off hire days in connection with our eight vessels that required dry dockings in 2012.
 
Vessel operating expenses were $64.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $54.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 16.6%. The increase in operating expenses was a result of an increase in operating days of 14.9%, due to operating days for the full year in 2012 of the three vessels delivered in 2011, and due to operating days for the Nordic Harrier which was employed in the spot market from May 1, 2011. The increase in operating expenses was also due to an increase in the average operating expenses per day of $8,700 for the year ended December 31, 2012 from $8,600 per day f for the year ended December 31, 2011.
 
General and administrative expenses were $14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of 4.5%. The decrease of $0.7 million is a result of an increase of $1.1 million related to share-based compensation and pension costs, an increase of $0.5 million in salary, wages and management fee, offset by a decrease of $2.3 million in legal fees due to the arbitration procedures for the Nordic Galaxy expensed in 2011. General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 include $4.2 million in expenses related to share-based compensation and pension costs as compared to $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in general and administrative expenses of $1.1 million related to share-based compensation and pension costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared for the year ended December 31, 2011, is a result of an increase in costs of $1.5 million related to the issuance of restricted shares to the Manager under the Management Agreement after a follow-on offering that was conducted in January 2012 as compared to no such costs for the year ended December 31, 2011. In addition, a decrease in costs of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 is attributable to foreign currency exchange fluctuations of $0.8 million and increase of $0.6 million as a result of the financial assumptions related to deferred compensation agreements which are denominated in Norwegian Krone.
 
Depreciation expenses were $69.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $64.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 7.1%. The increase of $4.6 million in depreciation expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011 is a result of an increase of depreciation for the full year in 2012 of the three vessels delivered in 2011, and an increase in amortization expenses of drydocking costs related to capitalized drydocking costs during 2012 and 2011.
 
 
35

 
Impairment Loss on vessels was $12.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The impairment loss relates to one vessel where we believed that future undiscounted cash flow was less than the carrying value. A portfolio approach would cause no impairment charge as the combined undiscounted cashflows are considerably in excess of the combined carrying value of our fleet.
 
Loss on Contract was $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $16.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Loss on Contract was a result of the award granted by the arbitral tribunal related to the arbitration involving the Nordic Galaxy in 2011.
 
Net operating loss was $67.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to net operating loss of $71.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of 4.7%. The decrease in net operating loss of $3.3 million was due to an increase in revenue days and an increase in spot market rates, offset by an increase in vessel operating expenses and depreciation expenses due to expansion of the fleet by three vessels during 2011. The net operating loss was also impacted by recorded an impairment loss on vessels of $12.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and by recorded an loss of contract of $16.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.
 
Interest income was $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of $0.8 million. The decrease in interest income was primarily due to the Company recorded interest income of $0.0 million derived from a loan furnished to the seller of Nordic Galaxy for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in interest income was offset by an increase in interest income of $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 due to increase of cash on hand.

            Interest expense was $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in interest expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 is the result of an increase in amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility to $250.0 million from $230.0 million as of December 31, 2011. The increase in interest expenses is also the result of an increase of amortization of deferred finance costs in connection with refinancing of the 2012 Credit Facility and an increase in interest rates for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
 
 
 
Year Ended December
31,
 
 
 
 
All figures in USD '000
 
2011
 
 
2010
 
 
Variance
 
Voyage Revenue
 
 
94,787
 
 
 
126,416
 
 
 
(25.0
%)
Voyage Expenses
 
 
(14,921
)
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
Net Voyage Revenues
 
 
79,866
 
 
 
126,416
 
 
 
(36.8
%)
Vessel Operating Expenses
 
 
(54,859
)
 
 
(47,113
)
 
 
(16.4
%)
General and Administrative Expenses
 
 
(15,394
)
 
 
(15,980
)
 
 
3.7
%
Depreciation Expense
 
 
(64,626
)
 
 
(62,545
)
 
 
(3.3
%)
Loss on Contract
 
 
(16,200
)
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
Net Operating (Loss) Income
 
 
(71,213
)
 
 
778
 
 
 
 
 
Interest Income
 
 
1,187
 
 
 
632
 
 
 
87.8
%
Interest Expense
 
 
(2,130
)
 
 
(1,971
)
 
 
(8.1
%)
Other Financial Expense
 
 
(142
)
 
 
(248
)
 
 
42.7
%
Net (Loss) Income
 
 
(72,298
)
 
 
(809
)
 
 
-
 
 
 
36

 
 
 
Year Ended December
31,
 
 
 
 
All figures in USD '000
 
2011
 
 
2010
 
 
Variance
 
Voyage Revenue  –  net pool earnings
 
 
76,618
 
 
 
119,598
 
 
 
(35.9
%)
Voyage Revenue – gross freight
 
 
18,169
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
 
 
Bareboat Revenue
 
 
-
 
 
 
6,818
 
 
 
 
 
Total Voyage Revenue
 
 
94,787
 
 
 
126,416
 
 
 
(25.0
%)
Less Bareboat Revenue
 
 
-
 
 
 
(6,818
)
 
 
 
 
Less Voyage expenses – gross voyage expenses
 
 
(14,921
)
 
 
-
 
 
 
 
 
Total TCE revenue
 
 
79,866
 
 
 
119.598
 
 
 
(33.2
%)
Vessel Calendar Days (1)
 
 
6,367
 
 
 
5,732
 
 
 
11.1
%
Less bareboat days
 
 
-
 
 
 
395
 
 
 
 
 
Less off-hire days (2)
 
 
116
 
 
 
101
 
 
 
14.9
%
Total TCE days
 
 
6,251
 
 
 
5,236
 
 
 
19.4
%
TCE Rate per day (3)
 
$
12,777
 
 
$
22,841
 
 
 
(44.1
%)
Total Days – vessel operating expenses
 
 
6,370
 
 
 
5,337
 
 
 
19.4
%

 
(1)
Vessel Calendar Days is the total number of days the vessels were in our fleet.
 
(2)
Nordic Harrier (former Gulf Scandic) was redelivered from a bareboat charter in October 2010 and went directly into drydock for repairs. The drydock period was completed in late April 2011 and the vessel was employed in the spot market pursuant to cooperative arrangements on May 1, 2011. The calendar days and the off-hire days in connection with the drydock period of the Nordic Harrier are not included in this table because the vessel had not operated in the spot market prior to May 1, 2011 and as a result, the number of calendar and off-hire days would not have an impact on the comparison of TCE rate per day.
 
(3)
Time Charter Equivalent, ("TCE"), results from Total TCE revenue divided by Total TCE days

Voyage revenue decreased by 25.0% to $94.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, from $126.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The decrease in voyage revenue was primarily the result of a decrease in net pool earnings by 35.9% to $76.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, from $119.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, due to a decline in spot market rates. The decrease in net pool earnings was offset by an increase in TCE days of 19.4% for the year ended December 31, 2011 from 2010, due to the expansion of the fleet by three vessels in 2011 and TCE days for a whole year for the vessels delivered in 2010.
 
Voyage expenses were $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to $0.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The voyage expenses of $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 is related to the six vessels we temporarily operated in the spot market where the Company was the principal of the vessel's activities. During 2010 we did not operate as principal of the vessel's activities. Vessels chartered for a single voyage are presented in the Statement of Operations on a gross basis. The gross freight achieved on these voyages is included in the voyage revenue. Revenues for vessels employed pursuant to a cooperative arrangement are presented net of voyage expenses.
 
Net voyage revenues were $79.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $126.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, representing a decrease of 36.8%. The decrease in net voyage revenues was primarily the result of a decrease in the spot market rates for the period. Average TCE rate was $12,777 per day for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $22,841 per day for the year ended December 31, 2010, representing a decrease of 44.1%. The decrease in net voyage revenues was offset by an increase in revenue days of 19.4%, due to expansion of the fleet by three vessels in 2011 and revenue days for a whole year for the vessels delivered in 2010.
 
Vessel operating expenses, or operating expenses, were $54.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $47.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, an increase of 16.4%. The increase in operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010 was a result of an increase in operating days of 19.4%, due to expansion of the fleet by three vessels in 2011 and operating days for a whole year for the vessels delivered in 2010. The increase in operating expenses was offset by a decrease in the average operating expenses per day of $8,600 for the year ended December 31, 2011, from $8,800 per day for the year ended December 31, 2010. The decrease in average operating expenses per day is a result of our high focus on limiting costs and the cost synergies created by operating a homogenous fleet.
 
 
37

 
General and administrative expenses were $15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $16.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, which resulted in a decrease of 3.7%. The decrease of $0.6 million in general and administrative expenses during 2011 as compared to 2010, is a result of a decrease of $2.2 million related to share-based compensation and pension costs, offset by an increase of $0.9 million related to the arbitration procedures for the Nordic Galaxy and of $0.7 million related to the increase in expenses primarily due to expansion of the fleet by three vessels in 2011. General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011, include $3.1 million in expenses related to share-based compensation and pension costs as compared to $5.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The decrease in general and administrative expenses of $2.2 million related to share-based compensation and pension cost for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the year ended December 31, 2010, is a result of a decrease in costs of $2.8 million related to the issuance of restricted shares to the Manager after a follow-on offering that was conducted in 2010 under the management agreement as compared to no such costs in 2011. In addition, a decrease in costs of $0.7 million in 2011 under deferred compensation plan is a result of foreign currency exchange fluctuations related to the deferred compensation agreements which are denominated in Norwegian Kroner and the financial assumption of the agreements. We had an increase in expenses in 2011 of $1.3 million related to restricted shares issued under the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
Depreciation expenses were $64.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $62.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 which is an increase of 3.3%.  The increase in depreciation expenses is a result of an increase of $5.9 million in the total depreciation of vessels due to the expansion of our fleet by three vessels during 2011 and the inclusion of the depreciation for a whole year of the vessels delivered in 2010, offset by a decrease in amortization expenses of drydocking costs of $3.8 million related to capitalized drydocking expenses that were fully amortized during 2010.
 
Loss on Contract was $16.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Loss on Contract is a result of the award granted by the arbitral tribunal related to the arbitration involving the Nordic Galaxy. Even though the result of the arbitration could have been more advantageous for the Company, we are satisfied that a ship that did not meet our specifications did not enter our fleet. For further details, see Note 9 of our audited financial statements.
 
Net operating loss was $71.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to net operating income of $0.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The increase in net operating loss of $70.4 million was primarily a result of a decrease in net voyage revenue of $46.6 million due to a decrease in spot market rates, an increase of vessel operating expenses of $7.7 million and an increase of depreciation expenses of $2.1 million due to an increase in operating days as well as the Loss on Contract of $16.2 million from the result of the award granted by the arbitral tribunal related to arbitration involving the Nordic Galaxy.
 
Interest income was $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 and $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. Interest income of $1.2 million was derived from the loan furnished from the Company to the seller of the Nordic Galaxy, which the Company did not take delivery of in August 2010. For further details, see Note 9 of our audited financial statements.
 
Interest expenses were $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The increase in interest expenses is primarily the result of an increase in amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility and an increase in interest rates during 2011 compared to 2010.

Inflation
 
Inflation has had only a moderate effect on our expenses given recent economic conditions. In the event that significant global inflationary pressures appear, these pressures would increase our operating costs.
 
 
38

 
B. Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
Our Credit Facilities
 
2005 Credit Facility

The Company had a $500 million revolving credit facility, which is referred to as the 2005 Credit Facility. The 2005 Credit Facility provided funding for future vessel acquisitions and general corporate purposes. Amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility bared interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin between 0.7% and 1.2% (depending on the loan to vessel value ratio). The Company paid a commitment fee of 30% of the applicable margin on any undrawn amounts. Borrowings under the 2005 Credit facility were secured by first priority mortgage over the Company's vessels and assignment of earning and insurance.

The 2005 Credit Facility was repaid to the lenders on November 14, 2012. The undrawn amount of this facility as of December 31, 2011 was $270.0 million. The Company was in compliance with its loan covenants during 2012 and 2011.
 
2012 Credit Facility
 
On October 26, 2012, the Company entered into a $430 million revolving credit facility with a syndicate of lenders in order to refinance the 2005 Credit Facility, fund future vessel acquisitions and for general corporate purposes (the “2012 Credit Facility”). Amounts borrowed under the 2012 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin and the Company pays a commitment fee, which is a percentage of the applicable margin, on any undrawn amounts. The 2012 Credit Facility matures in late October 2017.

Borrowings under the 2012 Credit Facility are secured by first priority mortgages over the Company’s vessels and assignments of earnings and insurance. Under the 2012 Credit Facility, the Company is subject to certain covenants requiring among other things, the maintenance of (i) a minimum amount of equity; (ii) a minimum equity ratio; (iii) a minimum level of liquidity; and (iv) positive working capital.  The 2012 Credit Facility also includes customary events of default including non-payment, breach of covenants, insolvency, cross default and material adverse change. The Company is permitted to pay dividends in accordance with its dividend policy as long as it is not in default under the 2012 Credit Facility. The finance costs of $6.1 million incurred in connection with the refinancing of the 2012 Credit Facility are deferred and amortized over the term of the 2012 Credit Facility on a straight-line basis.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $250.0 million outstanding under the 2012 Credit Facility and $180.0 million available for additional borrowing. The Company is currently in compliance with its loan covenants under the 2012 Credit Facility. Cash on hand was $55.5 million as of December 31, 2012.

Management believes that the Company’s working capital is sufficient for its present requirements.

Cash Flow
 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
 
Cash flows (used in) operating activities decreased to ($0.6) million for the year ended December 31, 2012 from ($12.2) million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in cash flows used in operating activities is primarily due to an increase in spot market rates and an increase in calendar days, offset by an increase of vessel operating expenses due to an increase in operating days for the three vessels delivered in 2011 and due to operating days for Nordic Harrier which was employed in the spot market from May 1, 2011.

Cash flows provided by investing activities increased to $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to cash flow (used) of ($81.8) million for the year ended December 31, 2011. Cash flows provided by investing activities during 2012 consist primarily of loan repayment from the seller of Nordic Galaxy of $9.0 million offset by vessel improvement of $2.8 million. Cash flows (used) by investing activities during 2011 consist primarily of payments in connection with the delivery of the Nordic Breeze, the Nordic Aurora and the Nordic Zenith and payments in connection with vessel upgrade of the Nordic Harrier.
 
 
39

 
Cash flows provided by financing activities decreased to $25.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to cash flow provided by financing activities of $100.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. The financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 consist of proceeds from our follow-on offering of $75.6 million, the net proceeds from the drawdown of $20.0 million under our 2005 Credit Facility less $63.5 million paid in dividends. The financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 represents net proceeds from a drawdown of $155.0 million under the 2005 Credit Facility less $54.3 million paid in dividends.

During 2013, six of the Company’s vessels are required as part of the class renewal survey, to be drydocked for overhaul repair and maintenance that cannot be performed while the vessels are in operation. For 2013, the total off-hire days are estimated at approximately 186 days and drydocking costs are estimated at approximately $18.0 million. These drydocking costs are to be financed through the capital resources of the Company.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $180.0 million available for additional borrowing under the 2012 Credit Facility. Cash on hand was $55.5 million as of December 31, 2012. The Company believes that its borrowing capacity under the 2012 Credit Facility, together with is working capital, are sufficient to fund its ongoing operations and commitments for capital expenditures. For further information on capital commitments and expenditures please see Item 5F.
 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
 
Cash flows (used in) provided by operating activities decreased to ($12.2) million for the year ended December 31, 2011 from $57.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The decrease in cash flows provided by operating activities is primarily due to lower spot market rates and an increase of vessel operating expenses due to the expansion of the fleet in December 2010 and during 2011.

Cash flows used in investing activities decreased to $81.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $202.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The cash flows used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 consists primarily of payments made in connection with the drydocking of the Nordic Harrier and in connection with the delivery of the Nordic Breeze, the Nordic Aurora and the Nordic Zenith. The cash flows used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2010 were primarily a result of the expansion of our fleet by two vessels in 2010, a loan to the sellers of the Nordic Galaxy of $8.4 million which we did not take delivery of, and advances related to the two newbuildings that were delivered to us in August 2011 and in November 2011.

Cash flows provided by financing activities decreased to $100.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to cash flow provided by financing activities of $131.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011 are the net proceeds from the drawdown of $155.0 million under the 2005 Credit Facility less $54.3 million paid in dividends. The financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2010 represent proceeds from the follow-on offering of $136.5 million and the net proceeds from a drawdown of $75.0 million under the 2005 Credit Facility less $79.7 million paid in dividends.

During 2012, eight of the Company's vessels are required, as part of the class renewal survey, to be drydocked for overhaul repair and maintenance.  The total off-hire days is estimated to be 160 days and drydocking costs are estimated to be $16.0 million. These drydocking costs are to be financed through the financial resources of the Company. Management believes that the Company's working capital is sufficient for its present requirements.
.
C. Research and Development, Patents and Licenses , Etc.
 
Not applicable.
 
D. Trend Information
 
 
40

 
The oil tanker industry has been highly cyclical, experiencing volatility in charterhire rates and vessel values resulting from changes in the supply of and demand for crude oil and tanker capacity. See Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – The 2012 Tanker Market.
 
E. Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
 
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.
 
F. Tabular Disclosure Of Contractual Obligations
 
The Company's contractual obligations as of December 31, 2012, consist of our obligations as borrower under our 2012 Credit Facility and our deferred compensation agreement for our Chairman, President and CEO and our EVP&Chief Financial Officer.
 
The following table sets out long-term financial, commercial and other obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2012 (all figures in thousands of USD).
 
PART II
 
Contractual Obligations
 
Total
 
 
Less than
1 year
 
 
1-3
 years
 
 
3-5 years
 
 
More than
5 years
 
2012 Credit Facility (1)
 
 
250,000
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
250,000
 
 
 
-
 
Interest Payments (2)
 
 
39,822
 
 
 
8,264
 
 
 
16,526
 
 
 
15,032
 
 
 
-
 
Commitment Fees (3)
 
 
10,378
 
 
 
2,153
 
 
 
4,307
 
 
 
3,918
 
 
 
-
 
Deferred Compensation Agreement (4)
 
 
11,267
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
11,267
 
Total
 
 
311,467
 
 
 
10,417
 
 
 
20,833
 
 
 
268,950
 
 
 
11,267
 
 
Notes:
 
(1)
Refers to obligation to repay indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2012.
(2)
Refers to estimated interest payments over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2012.
(3)
Refers to estimated commitment fees over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2012.
(4)
Refers to estimated deferred compensation agreements payable to the Company's CEO and EVP&CFO as of December 31, 2012.
 
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
 
We prepare our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or U.S. GAAP. Following is a discussion of the accounting policies that involve a high degree of judgment and the methods of their application. For a further description of our material accounting policies, please read Item 18 – Financial Statements— Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.
 
Revenue and voyage expense
 
Revenues and voyage expenses are recognized on an accruals basis. Revenues are generated from spot charters, cooperative arrangements and bareboat charter hires.
 
Voyage revenues and voyage expenses are recognized ratably over the estimated length of each voyage and, therefore, are allocated between reporting periods based on the relative transit time in each period. The impact of recognizing voyage expenses ratably over the length of each voyage is not materially different on a quarterly and annual basis from a method of recognizing such costs when incurred. Probable losses on voyages are provided for in full at the time such losses can be estimated. Based on the terms of the customer agreement, a voyage is deemed to commence upon the completion of discharge of the vessel's previous cargo and is deemed to end upon the completion of discharge of the current cargo. However, the Company does not recognize revenue if a charter has not been contractually committed to by a customer and the Company, even if the vessel has discharged its cargo and is sailing to the anticipated load port on its next voyage.
 
 
41

 
Spot Charters: Tankers operating in the spot market are typically chartered for a single voyage which may last up to several weeks. Under a voyage charter revenue is generated from freight billing, as we are responsible for paying voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. When our tankers are operating on spot charters the vessels are traded fully at the risk and reward of the Company. For vessels operating in the spot market other than through the pool (described below under "Cooperative arrangement"), the vessels will be operated by the pool manager.  Under this type of employment, the vessel's revenues are not included in the profit sharing of the participating vessels in the pool. The Company considers it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in the Statements of Operations.  See note 2 to our audited financial statements for further information concerning our accounting policies.
 
During 2012 and 2011, we temporarily operated six vessels in the spot market through the pool manager of the cooperative arrangement.

Cooperative arrangement: The pool manager of the cooperative arrangements has the responsibility for the commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker (fuel oil) for the vessels. Revenue is generated from freight billing, as the pool manager is responsible for paying voyage expenses and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. The pool manager employs the vessels in the pool under a contract with a particular charterer for a number of voyages, with each single voyage or contract of carriage being performed by a pool vessel after nomination by the pool manager. Each participant in the pool shall, in relation to each of its vessels, maintain the vessel in a seaworthy condition and to defined technical and operational standards and obtain and maintain the required number of vettings. The owners of the participating vessels remain responsible for the technical costs including crewing, insurance, repair and maintenance, financing and technical management of their vessels. The revenues, less voyage expenses, or net pool earnings of all of the vessels are aggregated and divided by the actual earning days each vessel is available during the period.
 
As of November 2011 and through November 5, 2012, the date on which Frontline completed the withdrawal of all of its vessel from the Orion Tankers pool, the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a net basis in its Statements of Operations. Effective November 5, 2012 the Company has considered it appropriate to present this type of arrangement on a gross basis in its Statement of Operations.  See Note 2 to our audited financial statement.
 
If a vessel does not temporarily comply with the pool requirements, the vessel will continue to be operated in the spot market by the pool manager, as described above under "Spot Charters".

Long-lived assets
 
A significant part of the Company's total assets consists of our vessels. The oil tanker market is highly cyclical. The useful lives of our vessels are principally dependent on the technical condition of our vessels.
 
Vessels are stated at their historical cost, which consists of the contracted purchase price and any direct expenses incurred upon acquisition (including improvements, on site supervision expenses incurred during the construction period, commissions paid, delivery expenses and other expenditures to prepare the vessel for its initial voyage) less accumulated depreciation. Financing costs incurred during the construction period of the vessels are also capitalized and included into each vessel's cost based on the weighted average method. Certain subsequent expenditures for conversions and major improvements are also capitalized if it is determined that they appreciably extend the life, increase the earning capacity or improve the efficiency or safety of the vessel. Depreciation is calculated based on cost less estimated residual value, and is provided over the estimated useful life of the related assets using the straight-line method. The estimated useful life of a vessel is 25 years from the date the vessel is delivered from the shipyard. Repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred.
 
Management uses considerable judgment when establishing the depreciable lives of our vessels. In order to estimate useful lives of our vessels, Management must make assumptions about future market conditions in the oil tanker market. The Company considers the establishment of depreciable lives to be a critical accounting estimate.
 
We are not aware of any regulatory changes or environmental liabilities that we anticipate will have a material impact on our current or future operations.
 
 
42