Edgar Filing: NORDIC AMERICAN TANKER SHIPPING LTD

d979282_20-f.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 20-F

[ ] REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR 12(g) OF THE

SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____ to ____

[ ] 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 TANKER SHIPPING 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)

Herbjørn 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, 2008, there were 34,373,271 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.

[X] Yes	[_] 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.

[_] Yes	[X] No

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	[_] 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)

[_] Yes

[_] No

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

Large accelerated filer [X]	Accelerated filer [_]

Non-accelerated filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) [_]	Smaller reporting company [_]

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

[_] International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board

[_] 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.

[_] Item 17

[_] Item 18

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

[_] Yes	[X] No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ITEM 1.	IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS	1
ITEM 2.	OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE	1
ITEM 3.	KEY INFORMATION	1
ITEM 4.	INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY	16
ITEM 4A.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	34
ITEM 5.	OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS	34
ITEM 6.	DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES	40
ITEM 7.	MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS	43
ITEM 8.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION	44
ITEM 9.	THE OFFER AND LISTING	44
ITEM 10.	ADDITIONAL INFORMATION	45
ITEM 11.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	56
ITEM 12.	DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES	56
ITEM 13.	DEFAULTS, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES	57
ITEM 14.	MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OF PROCEEDS	57

ITEM 15.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	57
ITEM 16.	RESERVED.	58
ITEM 16A.	AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT	58
ITEM 16B.	CODE OF ETHICS	58
ITEM 16C.	PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES	58
ITEM 16D.	EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LISTING STANDARDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES	59
ITEM 16E.	PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PERSONS	59
ITEM 16G.	CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	59
ITEM 17.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	59
ITEM 18.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	59
ITEM 19.	EXHIBITS	59

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, vessels breakdowns and instances of off-hires 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 Tanker Shipping Limited.

ITEM 1.

IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not Applicable

ITEM 2.

OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not Applicable

ITEM 3.

KEY INFORMATION

A.	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following historical financial information should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements and related notes all of which are included elsewhere in this document and “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.” The statement of operations data for each of the three years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 and selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 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, 2005 and 2004 and selected balance sheet data for each of the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 are derived from our audited financial statements not included in this document.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

All figures in thousands of USD except share data	2008			2007			2006			2005			2004

Voyage revenue		228,000			186,986			175,520			117,110			67,452
Voyage expenses		(10,051	)		(47,122	)		(40,172	)		(30,981	)		(4,925	)
Vessel operating expense – excl. depreciation expense presented below		(35,593	)		(32,124	)		(21,102	)		(11,221	)		(1,977	)
General and administrative expenses		(12,785	)		(12,132	)		(12,750	)		(8,492	)		(10,852	)
Depreciation		(48,284	)		(42,363	)		(29,254	)		(17,529	)		(6,918	)
Net operating income		121,288			53,245			72,242			48,887			42,780

Interest income		931			904			1,602			850			143
Interest expense		(3,392	)		(9,683	)		(6,339	)		(3,454	)		(1,971	)
Other financial (expense) income		17			(260	)		(112	)		34			(136	)
Total other expenses		(2,443	)		(9,039	)		(4,849	)		(2,570	)		(1,964	)
Net income		118,844			44,206			67,393			46,317			40,816

Basic earnings per share		3.63			1.56			3.14			3.03			4.05
Diluted earnings per share		3.62			1.56			3.14			3.03			4.05
Cash dividends declared per share		4.89			3.81			5.85			4.21			4.84
Basic weighted average shares outstanding		32,739,057			28,252,472			21,476,196			15,263,622			10,078,391
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding		32,832,854			28,294,997			21,476,196			15,263,622			10,078,391

Other financial data:
Net cash from operating activities		127,900			83,649			106,613			51,056			62,817
Dividends paid		165,886			107,349			122,590			64,279			47,196

Selected Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Cash and cash equivalents		31,378			13,342			11,729			14,240			30,733
Total assets		813,878			804,628			800,180			505,844			224,203
Total debt		15,000			105,500			173,500			130,000			0
Common stock		344			300			269			166			131
Total shareholders’ equity		788,586			672,105			611,946			370,872			221,868

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 has been cyclical, is depressed in the future, our earnings and available cash flow may decrease.

The current global financial crisis may adversely affect our ability to recharter our vessels or to sell them on the expiration or termination of their charters and the charter rates payable in respect of our twelve vessels currently operating in the spot market, or any renewal or replacement charters. 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 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,

global and regional economic conditions,

the distance oil and oil products are to be moved by sea,

changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns,

weather, and

competition from alternative sources of energy.

The factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

the number of newbuilding deliveries,

the scrapping rate of older vessels,

conversion of tankers to other uses,

the number of vessels that are out of service, and

environmental concerns and regulations.

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. Twelve of our thirteen vessels are currently operated in the spot market, of which seven vessels are under a cooperative agreement with Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO) and five vessels with Stena Bulk AB of Sweden. 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.

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

Demand for our vessels and services in transporting oil will depend upon world and regional oil markets. Any decrease in shipments of crude oil in those markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Historically, those markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and events that affect the price, production and transport of oil, including competition from alternative energy sources. The current recession affecting the U.S. 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 will be 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 thirteen vessels. Of those thirteen vessels, one is on a long-term fixed-rate charter, while the other twelve are employed in the spot market. Therefore 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.

Normally, tanker markets are stronger in the fall and winter months (the fourth and first quarters of the calendar year) in anticipation of increased oil consumption in the Northern Hemisphere during the winter months. Unpredictable weather patterns and variations in oil reserves disrupt tanker scheduling. Seasonal variations in tanker demand will affect any spot market related rates that we may receive.

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.

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

Our vessels are evaluated for impairment annually or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of the vessel and its eventual disposition is less than the carrying amount of the vessel, the vessel is deemed impaired. The carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time because the new market prices of second-hand 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, operating results or the trading price of our common shares.

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

The market supply of tankers is affected by a number of factors such as demand for energy resources, oil, and petroleum products, as well as strong overall economic growth in parts of the world economy including Asia. If the capacity of new ships delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and lost, tanker capacity will increase. In addition, the newbuilding order book which extends to 2012 equalled approximately 38.9% of the existing world tanker fleet as of April 2009 and the order book may increase further in proportion to the existing fleet. 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 have recently increased in frequency, which 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 and in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Throughout 2008, the frequency of piracy incidents against commercial shipping vessels has increased significantly, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. For example, in November 2008, the M/V Sirius Star, a tanker vessel not affiliated with us, was captured by pirates in the Indian Ocean while carrying crude oil estimated to be worth $100 million. If these pirate attacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being characterized as “war risk” zones by insurers, as the Gulf of Aden temporarily was in May 2008, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including due to employing 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, any of these events may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

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. 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 the contraction of the global credit markets and the resulting volatility in the financial markets continues or worsens that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, and could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.

Recently, a number of major financial institutions have experienced serious financial difficulties and, in some cases, have entered into bankruptcy proceedings or are in regulatory enforcement actions. These difficulties have resulted, in part, from declining markets for assets held by such institutions, particularly the reduction in the value of their mortgage and asset-backed securities portfolios. These difficulties have been compounded by a general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit. In addition, these difficulties may adversely affect the financial institutions that provide our $500 million revolving credit facility, or the 2005 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, including our ability to take delivery of our two newbuildings.

If further emergency governmental measures are implemented in response to the economic downturn, that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Over the last year, global financial markets have experienced extraordinary disruption and volatility following adverse changes in the global credit markets. The credit markets in the United States have experienced significant contraction, deleveraging and reduced liquidity, and governments around the world have taken highly significant measures in response to such events, including the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in the United States, and may implement other significant responses in the future. Securities and futures markets and the credit markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and other requirements. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, other regulators, self-regulatory organizations and exchanges have enacted temporary emergency regulations and may take other extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies and may effect permanent changes in law or interpretations of existing laws. We cannot predict what, if any, such measures would be, but changes to securities, tax, environmental, or the laws of regulations, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Changes in fuel, or bunker prices, may adversely affect 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 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 regulations that can adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1975, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of 1973, the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966 and the U.S. Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002. 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, the management of ballast waters, maintenance and inspection, elimination of tin-based paint, development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. 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-mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. An oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages. 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.

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, International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code. The ISM Code requires shipowners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. If we fail to comply with the ISM Code, we may be subject to increased liability, 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. As of the date of this annual report, each of our vessels is ISM code-certified.

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. You should expect the market value of our oil tankers to fluctuate, depending on general economic and market conditions affecting the tanker industry and competition from other shipping companies, types and sizes of vessels, and other modes of transportation. 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 2005 Credit Facility. Under the 2005 Credit Facility, we are required to maintain equity, defined as total assets less total debt, of at least $150.0 million. If we determine at any time that a vessel’s future limited useful life and earnings require us to impair its value on our financial statements, that could result in a charge against our earnings and the reduction of our shareholders’ equity. 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, 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, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships, market disruptions, delay or rerouting. In addition, the operation of tankers has unique operational risks associated with the transportation of oil. An oil spill may cause significant environmental damage, and the costs associated with a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available to us. Compared to other types of vessels, tankers are exposed to a higher risk of damage and loss by fire, whether ignited by a terrorist attack, collision, or other cause, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil transported in tankers.

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a dry-docking facility. The costs of dry-dock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay dry-docking costs that our insurance does not cover 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.

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

We conduct most of our operations outside of the United States, and our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected by the effects of political instability, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities. Terrorist attacks such as the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the bombings in Spain on March 11, 2004 and in London on July 7, 2005 and the continuing response of the United States to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to contribute to world economic instability and uncertainty in global financial markets. Future terrorist attacks could result in increased volatility of the financial markets in the United States and globally and could result in an economic recession in the United States or the world. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all.

In the past, political instability has also resulted in attacks on vessels, such as the attack on the M/T Limburg in October 2002, 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 could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

If our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, 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. Although these sanctions and embargoes do not prevent our vessels from making calls to ports in these countries, potential investors could view such port calls negatively, which could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our common stock. 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.

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 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. The 2005 Credit Facility prohibits the declaration and payment of dividends if we are in default under the 2005 Credit Facility. We refer you to Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospectus— Liquidity and Capital Resources—Our Credit Facility 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,

identify businesses engaged in managing, operating or owning tankers for acquisitions or joint ventures,

integrate any acquired tankers or businesses successfully with our existing operations,

hire, train and retain qualified personnel and crew to manage and operate our growing business and fleet,

identify additional new markets,

improve our operating, financial and accounting systems and controls, and

obtain required financing for our existing and new operations.

Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 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, and we may not be able to require the Manager to hire more employees or adequately improve those systems. 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. The twelfth and thirteenth vessel that we took deliveries of in early December 2006 and February 2009, respectively, are secondhand. We have also agreed to acquire a secondhand double-hull Suezmax tanker, which we expect to take delivery by no later than July 15, 2009. While we typically 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. Generally, we do not receive the benefit of warranties from the builders for the secondhand vessels that we acquire.

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

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

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 14 years to 23 years, depending on the type of vessel. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our vessels. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends would be adversely affected. Any funds set aside for vessel replacement will not be available for dividends.

We are dependent on the Manager and there may be conflicts of interest arising from the relationship between our Chairman and the Manager that may not be resolved in our favor.

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. The loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition.

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.

A company which is 100% owned by Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and his family, is the owner of the Manager. The Manager may engage in business activities other than with respect to the Company. The fiduciary duty of a director may compete with or be different from the interests of the Manager and may create conflicts of interest in relation to that director’s duties to the Company.

Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians) may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without an appropriate governmental work permit. 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. In 2001, the Bermuda government announced a new policy limiting the duration of work permits to six years, with certain exemptions for key employees. We may not be able to use the services of one or more of our key employees in Bermuda if we are not able to obtain work permits for them, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

An increase in operating costs would decrease earnings and dividends per share.

Under the charter agreement for one of our vessels, the charterer is responsible for vessel operating expenses and voyage costs. Under the spot charters of twelve of our thirteen vessels, we are responsible for such costs. 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.

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

Borrowing under the 2005 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 2005 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 2005 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 and substantially all of our assets.

Our 2005 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 2005 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 2005 Credit Facility or if there is another default under the 2005 Credit Facility,

incur additional indebtedness, including the issuance of guarantees,

create liens on our assets,

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 our assets to, another person, or

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 we were to drawdown amounts under our 2005 Credit Facility, and if the recent volatility in LIBOR rates continues, it could affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

Amounts borrowed under our 2005 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin between 0.70% and 1.20% (depending on the loan to vessel value ratio). 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 may drawdown under our 2005 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 were to drawdown from our 2005 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, including one long-term fixed-rate charter, newbuilding contracts with shipyards and our 2005 Credit Facility. 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.

In addition, while we carry loss of hire insurance to cover 100% of our fleet, we may not be able to maintain this level of coverage. Accordingly, any loss of a vessel or extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

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

We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records, the claim records of our Manager, 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 Kroner. Declines in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the Norwegian Kroner, 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, 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 U.S. will be characterized as U.S. source shipping income and such income will be subject to a 4% United States federal income tax unless that corporation is entitled to a special tax exemption under the Code which applies to the international shipping income derived by certain non-United States corporations. We believe that we currently qualify for this statutory tax exemption and we will take this position for U.S. tax return reporting purposes. However, there are several risks that could cause us to become taxed on our U.S. source shipping income. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances on 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% United States federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income. 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 we become subject to taxes in Bermuda after 2016, our net income and cash flow would decrease.

We have received a standard assurance from the Bermuda Minister of Finance, under Bermuda’s Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966, that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax will not be applicable to us or to any of our operations or our shares, debentures or other obligations until March 28, 2016. Consequently, if our Bermuda tax exemption is not extended past March 28, 2016, we may be subject to any Bermuda tax after that date.

Given the limited duration of the Minister of Finance’s assurance, we cannot be certain that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after March 28, 2016. In the event that we become subject to any Bermuda tax after such date, it would decrease our net income and cash flow.

If U.S. tax authorities were to treat us as a “passive foreign investment company,” that could have adverse consequences on U.S. holders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for U.S. 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. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.” U.S. shareholders of a PFIC may be subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

Based on our current and expected future operations, we believe that we ceased to be a passive foreign investment company beginning with the 2005 taxable year. We do not anticipate that we will be a passive foreign investment company for any taxable year in the future. As a result, noncorporate U.S. shareholders should be eligible to treat dividends paid by us in 2006, 2007, 2008, and thereafter as “qualified dividend income” which is subject to preferential tax rates (through 2010). Since we expect to derive more than 25% of our income each year from our time chartering and voyage chartering activities, we believe that such income will be treated for relevant U.S. Federal income tax purposes as services income, rather than rental income. Correspondingly, such income should not constitute “passive income,” and the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income (which should constitute more than 50% of our assets each year), in particular our vessels, should not constitute passive assets for purposes of determining whether we are a passive foreign investment company in any taxable year.

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 for other tax purposes. However, we note that there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept our position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in the nature and extent of our operations.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year beginning with the 2005 taxable year, our U.S. shareholders who owned their shares during such year will face adverse U.S. tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those shareholders make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders), such shareholders would be liable to pay U.S. 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 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 shareholder’s holding period of our common shares. In addition, non-corporate U.S. shareholders will 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 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. Over the last year the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. If the volatility in the market continues or worsens, it could have a adverse affect on the market price of our common shares. The Investors in our common shares may not be able to resell their shares at or above their purchase price, which include the risks and uncertainties set forth in this annual report.

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 and bye-laws and The Companies Act, 1981 of Bermuda, or 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. However, the principles governing Section 111 have not been well developed.

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.

ITEM 4.

INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

A.	HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY

Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited, or the Company, was founded on June 12, 1995 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.

The Company was formed for the purpose of acquiring and chartering three double-hull Suezmax tankers that were built in 1997. These three vessels were initially bareboat chartered to BP Shipping Ltd., or BP Shipping, for a period of seven years. BP Shipping redelivered the three vessels to the Company in September 2004, October 2004 and November 2004, respectively. We continued contracts with BP Shipping by time chartering to it two of our original three vessels at spot market related rates for three year terms that expired in the fourth quarter of 2007. These two vessels are currently chartered in the spot market pursuant to cooperative agreements with third parties. We have bareboat chartered the third of our original three vessels to Gulf Navigation Company LLC, or Gulf Navigation, of Dubai, U.A.E. at a fixed rate charterhire for a five-year term that expires in November 2009, subject to two one-year extensions at Gulf Navigation’s option. Our fourth vessel was delivered to us in November 2004, our fifth and sixth vessels in March 2005, our seventh vessel in August 2005, our eighth vessel in November 2005, our ninth vessel in April 2006, our tenth and eleventh vessels in November 2006, our twelfth vessel in December 2006 and our thirteenth vessel in February 2009. Twelve of these vessels are currently chartered in the spot market or on spot market-related charters pursuant to cooperative agreements with third parties.

In July 2007, the Company issued 3,000,000 common shares at a public offering price of $41.50 per share in a registered transaction. The net proceeds of the offering were used to repay debt on our 2005 Credit Facility and to prepare for further expansion.

In November 2007, the Company agreed to acquire two Suezmax newbuildings, which are expected to be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2009 and by the end April 2010, respectively. The Company acquired these two newbuildings from First Olsen Ltd. at a price at delivery of $90,000,000 per vessel, including calculated predelivery interest expense and supervision expenses. The acquisitions will be financed by borrowings under the 2005 Credit Facility. See Note 8 to the Company’s Audited Financial Statements for more information.

In April 2008, the Company extended the term of the 2005 Credit Facility for three years. As a result, the 2005 Credit Facility matures in September 2013.

In May 2008, the Company issued 4,310,000 common shares at $37.00 per share in a registered transaction. The net proceeds were used to prepare for further expansion, repay the remaining debt on our 2005 Credit Facility and for working capital.

In January 2009, the Company issued 3,450,000 common shares at $32.50 per share in a registered transaction. The net proceeds of the offering were used to fund further acquisitions under planning and for general corporate purposes.

In January 2009, the Company announced the acquisition of the vessel, Nordic Sprite, at the purchase price of $56.7 million. The vessel, a 1999-built, modern double-hull Suezmax tanker, was acquired from an unaffiliated third party. We took delivery of this vessel in February 2009 and it is currently chartered in the spot market or on spot market-related charters.

In May 2009, the Company announced the acquisition of our sixteenth Suezmax vessel, a 150,000 dwt double-hull tanker for a purchase price of $57.0 million. The vessel is expected to be delivered from the seller no later than July 15, 2009. The new vessel will be operated in the spot market or on spot market-related charters.

B.	BUSINESS OVERVIEW

We are an international tanker company that owns thirteen modern double-hull Suezmax tankers averaging approximately 155,000 dwt each. We currently operate twelve of our thirteen existing vessels in the spot market or on spot market-related charters pursuant to cooperative arrangements with third parties and have bareboat chartered one vessel to Gulf Navigation. We have agreed to acquire two Suezmax newbuildings, one of which is expected to be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2009 and one of which is expected to be delivered by the end of April 2010. We have also agreed to acquire a secondhand double-hull Suezmax tanker, which we expect to take delivery by no later than Juy 15, 2009.

Tanker markets are typically stronger in the fall and winter months (the fourth and first quarters of the calendar) in anticipation of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere during the winter months. Seasonal variations in tanker demand normally result in seasonal fluctuations in spot market charter rates.

Our Fleet

Our fleet consists of fifteen modern double-hull Suezmax tankers of which two are newbuildings. The following chart provides information regarding each vessel status.

Vessel	Dwt*		Year Built	Employment	Flag
Gulf Scandic		151,475	1997	Long term fixed charter	Isle of Man
Nordic Hawk		151,475	1997	Spot	Bahamas
Nordic Hunter		151,400	1997	Spot	Bahamas
Nordic Freedom		163,455	2005	Spot	Bahamas
Nordic Voyager		149,591	1997	Spot	Norway
Nordic Fighter		153,328	1998	Spot	Norway
Nordic Discovery		153,328	1998	Spot	Norway
Nordic Sprite		147,188	1999	Spot – delivered in February 2009	Norway
Nordic Saturn		157,332	1998	Spot	Marshall Islands
Nordic Jupiter		157,411	1998	Spot	Marshall Islands
Nordic Cosmos		159,998	2002	Spot	Marshall Islands
Nordic Moon		159,999	2003	Spot	Marshall Islands
Nordic Apollo		159,999	2003	Spot	Marshall Islands
Nordic Galaxy		163,000	2009	Delivery scheduled by end of December 2009
Nordic Vega		163,000	2010	Delivery scheduled by end of April 2010
Total		2,341,979

* Deadweight ton

We have also agreed to acquire our sixteenth vessel, a 150,000 dwt double-hull Suezmax tanker, which we expect to take delivery by no later than Juy 15, 2009 and employ in the spot market or on spot market-related charters.

OUR CHARTERS

It is our policy to operate our vessels either in the spot market, on time charters or on bareboat charters. Our goal is to take advantage of potentially higher market rates with spot market related rates and voyage charters. We currently operate twelve of our thirteen existing vessels in the spot market or on spot market related time charters although we may consider charters at fixed rates depending on market conditions.

Cooperative Arrangements

We currently operate twelve of our thirteen existing vessels in spot market cooperative arrangements with other vessels that are not owned by us. These arrangements are managed and operated by the Swedish group Stena Bulk AB and by Frontline Chartering Services Inc, both of which are third party administrators. The administrators have the responsibility for the commercial management of the participating vessels, including marketing, chartering, operating and purchasing bunker (fuel oil) for the vessels. The participants remain responsible for all other costs including the financing, insurance, crewing and technical management of their vessels. The earnings of all of the vessels are aggregated and divided according to the relative performance capabilities of each vessel and the actual earning days of each vessel during the period. The vessels are operated in the spot market under our supervision.

Spot Charters

During 2008, we temporarily operated several vessels (Nordic Jupiter, Nordic Hawk, Nordic Hunter and Nordic Apollo) in the spot market, outside of the cooperative arrangements. Tankers operating in the spot market are typically chartered for a single voyage which may last up to several weeks. Tankers operating in the spot market may generate increased profit margins during improvements in tanker rates, while tankers on fixed-rate time charters generally provide more predictable cash flows.

Under a typical voyage charter in the spot market, we are paid freight on the basis of moving cargo from a loading port to a discharge port. We are responsible for paying both operating costs and voyage costs and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports.

Bareboat Charters

We have chartered one of our vessels (the Gulf Scandic) under a bareboat charter to Gulf Navigation, for a five- year term terminating in the fourth quarter of 2009 and subject to two one-year extensions at Gulf Navigation’s option. Gulf Navigation has exercised its first one-year option and extended the charter for one additional year through the fourth quarter of 2010. Under the terms of this bareboat charter, Gulf Navigation is obligated to pay a fixed charterhire of $17,325 per day for the entire charter period. During the charter period, Gulf Navigation is responsible for operating and maintaining the vessel and is responsible for covering all operating costs and expenses with respect to the vessel.

Management Agreement

Under the Management Agreement by and between the Company and Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the Manager, the Manager assumes commercial and operational responsibility of our vessels and is generally required to manage our day-to-day business subject to our objectives and policies as established by the Board of Directors. All decisions of a material nature concerning our business are reserved to our Board of Directors. The Management Agreement will terminate on June 30, 2019, unless earlier terminated pursuant to its terms, as discussed below, or extended by the parties following mutual agreement.

For its services under the Management Agreement, the Manager is reimbursed for all its costs incurred plus a management fee of $225,000 per annum, payable to the Manager quarterly in advance. Prior to October 12, 2004, the Management Agreement provided that the Manager would receive 1.25% of any gross charterhire paid to us. In order to further align the Manager’s interests with those of the Company, on October 12, 2004, the Manager agreed with us to amend the Management Agreement to eliminate this payment, and we issued to the Manager restricted common shares equal to 2% of our outstanding common shares. Anytime additional common shares are issued, the Manager will receive additional restricted common shares to maintain the number of common shares issued to the Manager at 2% of our total outstanding common shares. These restricted shares are nontransferable for three years from issuance.

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,

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’ negligence or wilful misconduct.

We may terminate the Management Agreement in the event that:

the Manager commits any material breach or omission of its material obligations or undertakings thereunder that is not remedied within thirty days of our notice to the Manager of such breach or omission,

the Manager fails to maintain adequate authorization to perform its duties thereunder that is not remedied within thirty days,

certain events of the Manager’s bankruptcy occur, or

it becomes unlawful for the Manager to perform its duties under the Management Agreement.

Commercial and Technical Management Agreements

The Company has outsourced its commercial and technical management of its vessels to third party operators. Under the supervision of the Manager, the ship management firm of V.Ships Norway AS or V.Ships, provides the technical management for twelve of the Company’s thirteen vessels.

The Company is also working together with Frontline Ltd. (NYSE:FRO) and the private Stena group of Sweden – both world names in the tanker industry - to provide commercial management services. These arrangements are expected to create synergies through economies of scale, resulting in a positive impact on the our overall results. Under the supervision of the Manager, Frontline and Stena’s duties include seeking and negotiating charters for the Company’s vessels.

We believe that compensation under the commercial and technical management agreements is in accordance with industry standards.

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 2009 and 2010 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. 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.

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. The oil tanker fleet is generally divided into the following five major types of vessels, based on vessel carrying capacity: (i) Ultra Large Crude Carrier, or ULCC, with a size range of approximately 320,000 to 450,000 dwt; (ii) Very Large Crude Carrier, or VLCC, with a size range of approximately 200,000 to 320,000 dwt; (iii) Suezmax-size range of approximately 120,000 to 200,000 dwt; (iv) Aframax-size range of approximately 80,000 to 120,000 dwt; (v) Panamax-size range of approximately 60,000 to 70,000 dwt; and (v) small tankers of less than approximately 60,000 dwt. 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 West Africa to the East Coast of the United States. 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.

The Tanker Market 2008 (Source: R.S. Platou Economic Research a.s.)

Despite the global economic crisis and a decline in oil consumption, we believe the tanker market experienced positive results in 2008.

As discussed above, the oil tanker fleet is generally divided into five major categories of vessels, based on carrying capacity. A tanker’s carrying capacity is measured in 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 VLCC spot rates reached an average of $88,000 per day for the year ended December 31, 2008, a significant increase from $51,000 per day for the year ended December 31, 2007. Suezmaxes, achieved average spot rates of $67,000 per day for the year ended December 31, 2008, up from $40,000 for the year ended December 31, 2007. Corresponding rates for Aframaxes were $50,000 per day for the year ended December 31, 2008 as compared with $35,000 per day for the year ended December 31, 2007. Our fleet is comprised of Suezmax tankers.

On an annual average basis, the tanker fleet increased by 4.3% from 2007 to 2008. Deliveries of new tankers reached approximately 33 million dwt for the year ended December 31, 2008, up from 29 million dwt for the year ended December 31, 2007. Scrapping amounted to approximately 4 million dwt. Five VLCCs were sold for scrapping; one Suezmax, nine Aframaxes and 54 smaller tankers were reported as sold for scrapping. The average scrapping age for all tankers was 24.8 years for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared with 27.6 years for the year ended December 31, 2007. It has further been reported that 11.4 million dwt or 86 tankers were undergoing conversions to other uses, of which 19 were VLCCs and 14 were Suezmaxes.

Estimates indicate an increase in seaborne oil trade of 1- 2% from 2007 to 2008 and a relatively strong increase in the average transport distance, driven by a strong rise in Middle East oil production. Other factors such as more floating storage and reduced speed (due in part to the record-high bunker prices) contributed strongly to the high growth in demand for tonnage. Charterers’ steadily reduced acceptance of single-hull tankers also played a large role in the increase in demand for double-hull tonnage. In 2008, the single-hull vessels represented approximately an average of 21% of the existing tanker fleet. Tonnage demand growth increased by approximately 7%, resulting in an increase in capacity utilization from 88% in 2007 to 90.5% in 2008.

Extreme volatility and record-high crude prices characterized the oil market in 2008. After OPEC cut output in 2007, the year 2008 started with relatively low oil inventories and an oil price of $100 per barrel on a distinct rising trend. OPEC then had a strong incentive to raise its output until the capacity limit was reached in July, at a price level of $147 per barrel. OPEC crude supply increased by 4% to 5% in the first half of the year, with the Middle East supply increasing by 6% to 7%. This strong supply growth was the main driver of the strong tanker market in 2008. As the global economy weakened sharply in the second half of the year, oil prices steeply declined and OPEC cut output targets a number of times but did not prevent prices falling as low as $35 per barrel. For the year ended December 31, 2008, as a whole, OPEC crude production (including Angola and Ecuador) was up 0.9 million barrels per day, or mbd, or 3%, while OPEC natural gas liquid, or NGL, production increased by 0.2 mbd. World oil consumption contracted for the first time since 1983, according to the International Energy Agency, or IEA, by 0.4%. U.S. oil consumption fell dramatically by 6%, while China increased its consumption by more than 4%.

Secondhand tanker sales fell from approximately 400 in the year ended December 31, 2007 to approximately 300 in the year ended December 31, 2008. After the collapse of the U.S. and European financial markets, virtually no sales have been reported. Values for double-hull vessels had increased some 40% to 50% from the start of the year to the peak in July, then fell to values of approximately 30% lower than at the beginning of the year.

According to the IEA's World Energy Outlook, published in November 2008, as much as 84% of the projected increase in world oil supply between 2007 and 2015 will come from OPEC countries. The Middle East will account for 69% of this increase in oil production, while two thirds of the projected increase in oil trade will be exported from this region. According to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy for 2008, the Middle East had 61% of the world’s proven oil reserves, which will continue to drive long and medium haul seaborne transportation. Given the dominance of world oil reserves located in this region, this share is expected to grow in coming years as oil fields in other parts of the world gradually reach maturity and begin a process of natural decline. The length of transportation distances between the Middle East and consuming areas means that such a trend would boost ton-miles (the product of volumes and transport distances) and may increase tanker demand.

A significant and ongoing shift toward quality in vessels and operations has taken place during the last decade as charterers and regulators increasingly focus on safety and protection of the environment. Since 1990, there has been an increasing emphasis on environmental protection through legislation and regulations such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, International Maritime Organization or IMO protocols and classification society procedures. Such regulations emphasize higher quality tanker construction, maintenance, repair and operations. Operators that have proven an ability to seamlessly integrate these required safety regulations into their operations are being rewarded. For example, the emergence of vessels equipped with double-hulls represented a differentiation in vessel quality and enabled such vessels to command improved earnings in the spot charter markets. The effect has been a shift in major charterers’ preference towards greater use of double-hulls and, therefore, more difficult trading conditions for older single-hull vessels.

The Tanker Market 2009

Notwithstanding the volatility in the financial and commodities markets, the Suezmax tanker spot market continued to be strong through the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. Going into second quarter of fiscal year 2009, the spot tanker market has tapered off while remaining subject to volatility. The Company does not predict future spot rates.

Environmental and Other Regulation

Government regulations and laws 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 and certificates for the operation of our vessels. Our failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to the stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels 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 stricter requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

Our vessels are subject to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections by a variety of governmental and private entities, each of which may have unique requirements. These entities include the local port authorities (U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administration (country of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators and oil companies. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of our vessels.

International Maritime Organization

The International Maritime Organization, or IMO (the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships), has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, which has been updated through various amendments, or the MARPOL Convention. The MARPOL Convention implements environmental standards including oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, as well as the handling and disposal of noxious liquids, harmful substances in packaged forms, sewage and air emissions. These regulations, which have been implemented in many jurisdictions in which our vessels operate, provide, in part, that:

25-year old tankers must be of double-hull construction or of a mid-deck design with double-sided construction, unless:

(1)

they have wing tanks or double-bottom spaces not used for the carriage of oil which cover at least 30% of the length of the cargo tank section of the hull or bottom; or

(2)

they are capable of hydrostatically balanced loading (loading less cargo into a tanker so that in the event of a breach of the hull, water flows into the tanker, displacing oil upwards instead of into the sea);

30-year old tankers must be of double-hull construction or mid-deck design with double-sided construction; and

all tankers will be subject to enhanced inspections.

Also, under IMO regulations, a tanker must be of double-hull construction or a mid-deck design with double-sided construction or be of another approved design ensuring the same level of protection against oil pollution if the tanker:

is the subject of a contract for a major conversion or original construction on or after July 6, 1993;

commences a major conversion or has its keel laid on or after January 6, 1994; or

completes a major conversion or is a newbuilding delivered on or after July 6, 1996.

Our vessels are also subject to regulatory requirements, including the phase-out of single-hull tankers, imposed by the IMO. Effective September 2002, the IMO accelerated its existing timetable for the phase-out of single-hull oil tankers. At that time, these regulations required the phase-out of most single-hull oil tankers by 2015 or earlier, depending on the age of the tanker and whether it has segregated ballast tanks. We do not currently own any single-hull tankers.

Under the regulations, the flag state may allow for some newer single-hull ships registered in its country that conform to certain technical specifications to continue operating until the 25th anniversary of their delivery. Any port state, however, may deny entry of those single-hull tankers that are allowed to operate until their 25th anniversary to ports or offshore terminals. These regulations have been adopted by over 150 nations, including many of the jurisdictions in which our tankers operate.

As a result of the oil spill in November 2002 relating to the loss of the MT Prestige, which was owned by a company not affiliated with us, in December 2003, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the IMO, or MEPC, adopted an amendment to the MARPOL Convention, which became effective in April 2005. The amendment revised an existing regulation 13G accelerating the phase-out of single-hull oil tankers and adopted a new regulation 13H on the prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers when carrying heavy grade oil. Under the revised regulation, single-hull oil tankers were required to be phased out no later than April 5, 2005 or the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship on the date or in the year specified in the following table:

Category of Oil Tankers		Date or Year for Phase Out
Category 1 oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 dwt and above carrying other oils, which do not comply with the requirements for protectively located segregated ballast tanks		April 5, 2005 for ships delivered on April 5, 1982 or earlier; or 2005 for ships delivered after April 5, 1982
Category 2 - oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 dwt and above carrying other oils, which do comply with the protectively located segregated ballast tank requirements and Category 3 - oil tankers of 5,000 dwt and above but less than the tonnage specified for Category 1 and 2 tankers.		April 5, 2005 for ships delivered on April 5, 1977 or earlier; 2005 for ships delivered after April 5, 1977 but before January 1, 1978; 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979; 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981; 2008 for ships delivered in 1982; 2009 for ships delivered in 1983; and 2010 for ships delivered in 1984 or later.

Under the revised regulations, a flag state may permit continued operation of certain Category 2 or 3 tankers beyond the phase out date set forth in the above schedule. Under regulation 13G, the flag state may allow for some newer single-hull oil tankers registered in its country that conform to certain technical specifications to continue operating until the earlier of the anniversary of the date of delivery of the vessel in 2015 or the 25th anniversary of their delivery. Under regulations 13G and 13H, as described below, certain Category 2 and 3 tankers fitted with only double bottoms or double sides may be allowed by the flag state to continue operations until their 25th anniversary of delivery. Any port state, however, may deny entry of those single-hull oil tankers that are allowed to operate under any of the flag state exemptions.

In October 2004, the MEPC adopted a unified interpretation of regulation 13G that clarified the delivery date for converted tankers. Under the interpretation, where an oil tanker has undergone a major conversion that has resulted in the replacement of the fore-body, including the entire cargo carrying section, the major conversion completion date shall be deemed to be the date of delivery of the ship, provided that:

the oil tanker conversion was completed before July 6, 1996;

the conversion included the replacement of the entire cargo section and fore-body and the tanker complies with all the relevant provisions of MARPOL Convention applicable at the date of completion of the major conversion; and

the original delivery date of the oil tanker will apply when considering the 15 years of age threshold relating to the first technical specifications survey to be completed in accordance with MARPOL Convention.

In December 2003, the MEPC adopted a new regulation 13H on the prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers when carrying heavy grade oil, or HGO, which includes most of the grades of marine fuel. The new regulation bans the carriage of HGO in single-hull oil tankers of 5,000 dwt and above after April 5, 2005, and in single-hull oil tankers of 600 dwt and above but less than 5,000 dwt, no later than the anniversary of their delivery in 2008.

Under regulation 13H, HGO means any of the following:

crude oils having a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3;

fuel oils having either a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50ºC higher than 180 mm2/s; or

bitumen, tar and their emulsions.

Under the regulation 13H, the flag state may allow continued operation of oil tankers of 5,000 dwt and above, carrying crude oil with a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3 but lower than 945 kg/m3, that conform to certain technical specifications and, if, in the opinion of the flag state, the ship is fit to continue such operation, having regard to the size, age, operational area and structural conditions of the ship and provided that the continued operation shall not go beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery. The flag state may also allow continued operation of a single-hull oil tanker of 600 dwt and above but less than 5,000 dwt, carrying HGO as cargo, if, in the opinion of the such flag state, the ship is fit to continue such operation, having regard to the size, age, operational area and structural conditions of the ship, provided that the operation shall not go beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery.

The flag state may also exempt an oil tanker of 600 dwt and above carrying HGO as cargo if the ship is either engaged in voyages exclusively within an area under its jurisdiction, or is engaged in voyages exclusively within an area under the jurisdiction of another party, provided the party within whose jurisdiction the ship will be operating agrees. The same applies to vessels operating as floating storage units of HGO.

Any port state, however, can deny entry of single-hull tankers carrying HGO which have been allowed to continue operation under the exemptions mentioned above, into the ports or offshore terminals under its jurisdiction, or deny ship-to-ship transfer of HGO in areas under its jurisdiction except when this is necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea.

Revised Annex I to the MARPOL Convention entered into force in January 2007. Revised Annex I incorporates various amendments adopted since the MARPOL Convention entered into force in 1983, including the amendments to regulation 13G (regulation 20 in the revised Annex) and regulation 13H (regulation 21 in the revised Annex). Revised Annex I also imposes construction requirements for oil tankers delivered on or after January 1, 2010. A further amendment to revised Annex I includes an amendment to the definition of heavy grade oil that will broaden the scope of regulation 21. On August 1, 2007, regulation 12A (an amendment to Annex I) came into force requiring oil fuel tanks to be located inside the double-hull in all ships with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600 m3 and above, and which are delivered on or after August 1, 2010, including ships for which the building contract is entered into on or after August 1, 2007 or, in the absence of a contract, which keel is laid on or after February 1, 2008.

Air Emissions

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention to address air pollution from ships. Effective in May 2005. Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons, emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks, and the shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. We believe that all our vessels are currently compliant in all material respects with these regulations. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition.

In October 2008, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emission standards which are expected to enter into force on July 1, 2010. The amended Annex VI would reduce air pollution from vessels by, among other things, (i) implementing a progressive reduction of sulfur oxide, emissions from ships, with the global sulfur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current cap of 4.50%), effective from January 1, 2012, then progressively to 0.50%, effective from January 1, 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018; and (ii) establishing new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. Once these amendments become effective, we may incur costs to comply with these revised standards.

Safety Requirements

The IMO has also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS Convention, and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, or LL Convention, which impose a variety of standards to regulate design and operational features of ships. SOLAS Convention and LL Convention standards are revised periodically. We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with SOLAS Convention and LL Convention standards.

Under Chapter IX of SOLAS, the 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, also affect our operations. 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 operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies.

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel’s management with 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 our offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the IMO. As required by the ISM Code, we renew these documents of compliance and safety management certificates annually.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively.

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

Ballast Water Requirements

The IMO adopted 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 (beginning in 2009), 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. The flag state, as defined by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, has overall responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations for all ships granted the right to fly its flag. The “Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance” evaluates flag states based on factors such as sufficiency of infrastructure, ratification of international maritime treaties, implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations, supervision of surveys, casualty investigations and participation at IMO meetings.

Oil Pollution Liability

Although the United States is not a party to these conventions, many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended in 2000, or the CLC. Under this convention 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 complete defenses. The limits on liability outlined in the 1992 Protocol use the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights, or SDR. Under an amendment to the 1992 Protocol that became effective on November 1, 2003, for vessels of 5,000 to 140,000 gross tons (a unit of measurement for the total enclosed spaces within a vessel), liability will be limited to approximately 4.51 million SDR plus 631 SDR for each additional gross ton over 5,000. For vessels of over 140,000 gross tons, liability will be limited to 89.77 million SDR. The exchange rate between SDRs and U.S. dollars was 0.661056 SDR per U.S. dollar on March 23, 2009. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the owner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to states that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to the CLC. We believe that our insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, to impose strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention, which became effective on November 21, 2008, 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.

Anti-Fouling Requirements

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, or the Anti-fouling Convention. The Anti-fouling Convention prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels after September 1, 2003. The exteriors of vessels constructed prior to January 1, 2003 that have not been in dry-dock must, as of September 17, 2008, either not contain the prohibited compounds or have coatings applied to the vessel exterior that act as a barrier to the leaching of the prohibited compounds. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages must obtain an International Anti-fouling System Certificate and undergo a survey before the vessel is put into service or when the antifouling systems are altered or replaced. We have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti-Fouling Convention.

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

United States Requirements

In 1990, the United States Congress enacted OPA to establish an extensive regulatory and liability regime for environmental protection and cleanup of oil spills. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade with the United States or its territories or possessions, or whose vessels operate in the waters of the United States, which include the U.S. territorial sea and the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, imposes liability for cleanup and natural resource damage from the release of hazardous substances (other than oil) whether on land or at sea. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

Under OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are responsible parties who 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 oil spills from their vessels. These other damages are defined broadly to include:

natural resource damages and related assessment costs;

real and personal property damages;

net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, profits or earnings capacity;

net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards; and loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

Under amendments to OPA that became effective on July 11, 2006, liability of responsible parties is limited, with respect to tanker vessels, to the greater of $1,900 per gross ton or $16.0 million per vessel that is over 3,000 gross tons. On September 24, 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed adjustments to the limits of liability that would increase the limits for tank vessels to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17.0 million per vessel that is over 3,000 gross tons and establish a procedure for adjusting the limits for inflation every three years. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on November 24, 2008. The act specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters. In some cases, states that have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining tanker owners’ responsibilities under these laws. CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for clean-up, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5.0 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for any other vessel.

These limits of liability do not apply, however, where the incident is caused by violation of applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations, or by the responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. These limits also do not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the substance removal activities. OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with OPA, CERCLA and all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

OPA also requires owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential strict liability under the act. On October 17, 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard enacted regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $1,500 per gross ton for tankers, coupling the former OPA limitation on liability of $1,200 per gross ton with the CERCLA liability limit of $300 per gross ton. The U.S. Coast Guard has indicated that it expects regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility in amounts that reflect the higher limits of liability imposed by the July 2006 amendments to OPA, as described above. The increased amounts became effective on January 15 2009. U.S. Coast Guard regulations currently require evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $2,200 per gross ton for tankers, coupling the OPA limitation on liability of $1,900 per gross ton with the CERCLA liability limit of $300 per gross ton. Under the regulations, evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance or guaranty. Under OPA regulations, an owner or operator of more than one tanker is required to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for the entire fleet in an amount equal only to the financial responsibility requirement of the tanker having the greatest maximum strict liability under OPA and CERCLA. We have provided such evidence and received certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard for each of our vessels as required to have one.

Under OPA, with certain limited exceptions, all newly-built or converted vessels operating in U.S. waters must be built with double-hulls, and existing vessels that do not comply with the double-hull requirement will be prohibited from trading in U.S. waters over a 20-year period (1995-2015) based on size, age and place of discharge, unless retrofitted with double-hulls. Our current fleet of 12 vessels are all of double-hull construction.

Owners or operators of tankers operating in the waters of the United States must file vessel response plans with the U.S. Coast Guard, and their tankers are required to operate in compliance with their U.S. Coast Guard approved plans. These response plans must, among other things:

address a worst case scenario and identify and ensure, through contract or other approved means, the availability of necessary private response resources to respond to a worst case discharge;

describe crew training and drills; and

identify a qualified individual with full authority to implement removal actions.

We have obtained vessel response plans approved by the U.S. Coast Guard for our vessels operating in the waters of the United States. We conduct regular oil spill response drills in accordance with the guidelines set out in OPA. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has announced it intends to propose similar regulations requiring certain vessels to prepare response plans for the release of hazardous substances.

In addition, the United States Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in United States navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for 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, discussed above. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, historically exempted the discharge of ballast water and other substances incidental to the normal operation of vessels in U.S. waters from CWA permitting requirements. However, on March 31, 2005, a U.S. District Court ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority in creating an exemption for ballast water. On September 18, 2006, the court issued an order invalidating the exemption in the EPA’s regulations for all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as of September 30, 2008, and directed the EPA to develop a system for regulating all discharges from vessels by that date. The EPA has enacted rules governing the regulation of ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels within U.S. waters. Under the new rules, which took effect February 6, 2009, commercial vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels), or Regulated Vessels, are required to obtain a CWA permit regulating and authorizing such normal discharges. This permit, which the EPA has designated as the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or VGP, incorporates the current U.S. Coast Guard requirements for ballast water management as well as supplemental ballast water requirements, and includes limits applicable to specific discharge streams.

Although the VGP became effective on February 6, 2009, the VGP application procedure, known as the Notice of Intent, or NOI, has yet to be finalized. Accordingly, Regulated Vessels will effectively be covered under the VGP from February 6, 2009 until June 19, 2009, at which time the “eNOI” electronic filing interface will become operational. Thereafter, owners and operators of Regulated Vessels must file their NOIs prior to September 19 2009, or the Deadline. Any Regulated Vessel that does not file an NOI by the Deadline will not be allowed to discharge into U.S. navigable waters until it has obtained a VGP. Our fleet is composed entirely of Regulated Vessels, and we intend to submit NOIs for each vessel in our fleet as soon after June 19, 2009 as practicable.

Owners and operators of vessels visiting U.S. waters will be required to comply with this VGP program or face penalties. This could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters. In addition, the CWA requires each state to certify federal discharge permits such as the VGP. Certain states have enacted more stringent discharge standards as conditions to their certification of the VGP. The VGP and its state-specific regulations and any similar restrictions enacted in the future will increase the costs of operating in the relevant waters.

The U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, was enacted in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. ports through ballast water taken on by ships in foreign ports. The United States Coast Guard adopted regulations under NISA in July 2004 that impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters. These requirements can be met by performing mid-ocean ballast exchange, by retaining ballast water on board the ship, or by using environmentally sound alternative ballast water management methods approved by the United States Coast Guard. (However, mid-ocean ballast exchange is mandatory for ships heading to the Great Lakes or Hudson River, or vessels engaged in the foreign export of Alaskan North Slope crude oil.) Mid-ocean ballast exchange is the primary method for compliance with the United States Coast Guard regulations, since holding ballast water can prevent ships from performing cargo operations upon arrival in the United States, and alternative methods are still under development. Vessels that are unable to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange due to voyage or safety concerns may discharge minimum amounts of ballast water (in areas other than the Great Lakes and the Hudson River), provided that they comply with recordkeeping requirements and document the reasons they could not follow the required ballast water management requirements. The United States Coast Guard is developing a proposal to establish ballast water discharge standards, which could set maximum acceptable discharge limits for various invasive species, and/or lead to requirements for active treatment of ballast water.

Our operations occasionally generate and require the transportation, treatment and disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes that are subject to the requirements of the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, or comparable state, local or foreign requirements. In addition, from time to time we arrange for the disposal of hazardous waste or hazardous substances at offsite disposal facilities. If such materials are improperly disposed of by third parties, we may still be held liable for clean up costs under applicable laws.

In addition, most 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 U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990, or the CAA, requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. In December 1999 and January 2003, the EPA issued final rules regarding emissions standards for marine diesel engines. The final rules apply emissions standards to new engines beginning with the 2004 model year. In the preambles to the final rules, the EPA noted that it may revisit the application for emissions standards for marine diesel engines. Those final rules are applicable to marine diesel engines on vessels flagged or registered in the United States. While we do not believe that these current standards are applicable to our vessels, adoption of future standards could require modifications to some existing marine diesel engines, and the extent to which our vessels could be affected cannot be determined at this time. Although a risk exists that new regulations could require significant capital expenditures and otherwise increase our costs, based on the regulations that have been proposed to date, we believe that no material capital expenditures beyond those currently contemplated and no material increase in costs are likely to be required of us.

Our vessels are subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas. Our vessels that operate in such port areas with restricted cargoes are equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements. The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in primarily major metropolitan and/or industrial areas. Several SIPs regulate emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. As indicated above, our vessels operating in covered port areas are already equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements. Although a risk exists that new regulations could require significant capital expenditures and otherwise increase our costs, based on the regulations that have been proposed to date, we believe that no material capital expenditures beyond those currently contemplated and no material increase in costs are likely to be required.

On October 9, 2008, the United States ratified the amended Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, addressing air pollution from ships, which went into effect on January 8, 2009. The EPA and the state of California, however, have each proposed more stringent regulations of air emissions from ocean-going vessels. On July 24, 2008, the California Air Resources Board of the State of California, or CARB, approved clean-fuel regulations applicable to all vessels sailing within 24 miles of the California coastline whose itineraries call for them to enter any California ports, terminal facilities, or internal or estuarine waters. The new CARB regulations require such vessels to use low sulfur marine fuels rather than bunker fuel. By July 1, 2009, such vessels are required to switch either to marine gas oil with a sulfur content of no more than 1.5% or marine diesel oil with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5%. By 2012, only marine gas oil and marine diesel oil fuels with 0.1% sulfur will be allowed. CARB unilaterally approved the new regulations in spite of legal defeats at both the district and appellate court levels, but more legal challenges are expected to follow. If CARB prevails and the new regulations go into effect as scheduled on July 1, 2009, in the event our vessels were to travel within such waters, these new regulations would require significant expenditures on low-sulfur fuel and would increase our operating costs. Finally, although the more stringent CARB regime was technically superseded when the United States ratified and implemented the amended Annex VI, the possible declaration of various U.S. coastal waters as Emissions Control Areas may in turn bring U.S. emissions standards into line with the new CARB regulations, which would cause us to incur further costs.

Other Regulations

In July 2003, in response to the MT Prestige oil spill in November 2002, the European Union adopted legislation that prohibits all single-hull tankers from entering into its ports or offshore terminals by 2010. The European Union has also banned all single-hull tankers carrying heavy grades of oil from entering or leaving its ports or offshore terminals or anchoring in areas under its jurisdiction. Commencing in 2005, certain single-hull tankers above 15 years of age will also be restricted from entering or leaving European Union ports or offshore terminals and anchoring in areas under European Union jurisdiction. The European Union has also adopted legislation that would: (1) ban manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as those over 15 years old that have been detained by port authorities at least twice in a six month period) from European waters and create an obligation of port states to inspect vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment; and (2) provide the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies. The sinking of the MT Prestige and resulting oil spill in November 2002 has led to the adoption of other environmental regulations by certain European Union nations, which could adversely affect the remaining useful lives of all of our vessels and our ability to generate income from them.

In 2005, the European Union adopted a directive on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for intentional, reckless or negligent pollution discharges by ships. The directive could result in criminal liability for pollution from vessels in waters of European countries that adopt implementing legislation. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. regulations, if any, may be adopted by the European Union or any other country or authority.

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO or individual countries where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which we refer to as the Kyoto Protocol, entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol. However, 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 vessels. In the United States, the California Attorney General and a coalition of environmental groups in October 2007 petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels under the CAA. According to the IMO’s study of greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping fleet, greenhouse emissions from ships are predicted to rise by 38% to 72% due to increased bunker consumption by 2020 if corrective measures are not implemented. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the United States or other countries where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, 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. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to protect ports and international shipping against terrorism. After July 1, 2004, 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, name of the ship and of the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship’s identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and

compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

The 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, as of July 1, 2004, a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures addressed by MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code, and our fleet is in compliance with applicable security requirements.

Inspection by Classification Societies

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, at intervals of 12 months from 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 may be carried out on 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. The classification society may grant a one-year grace period for completion of the special survey. 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 four or five years, depending on whether a grace period was granted, a shipowner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel’s hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle.

At an owner’s application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.

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

Most vessels are also dry-docked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs related to inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a ‘‘recommendation’’ which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as ‘‘in class’’ by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies. All our vessels are certified as being ‘‘in class’’ by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (one vessel), American Bureau of Shipping (three vessels) and Det norske Veritas (eight vessels). 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 and labor strikes. 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. While we carry loss of hire insurance to cover 100% of our fleet, we may not be able to maintain this level of coverage. 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.

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. 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

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on our reputation as an operator. Pursuant to our cooperative agreements with Stena Bulk AB and Frontline Management Ltd., both of which are third party administrators, the administrators have the responsibility for the commercial management of 12 of the 13 vessels in our operating fleet. 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 and class size. Ownership of tankers is highly fragmented and is divided among major oil companies and independent vessel owners.

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 the cost of us doing business.

C.	ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Prior to September 30, 1997, the Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA, or UNS, a Norwegian shipping company whose shares were listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. On September 30, 1997, 11,731,613 warrants for the purchase of the Company’s common shares, which had been sold to the public in 1995, were exercised. Until May 30, 2003, UNS acted as the Manager, and provided managerial, administrative and advisory services to the Company pursuant to the Management Agreement. 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. See Item 4—Information on the Company — Business Overview —The Management Agreement.

D.	PROPERTY, PLANT 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 2005 Credit Facility.

ITEM 4A.

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 5.

OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

A.	OPERATING RESULTS

We present our income statement using voyage revenues and voyage expenses. The Company’s vessels are operated under bareboat charters and spot charters. During 2008, we operated eleven of the twelve vessels we owned in that year in the spot market or on time charters on spot market related terms, while the twelfth vessel operated on a long-term fixed rate charter. We took delivery of our thirteenth vessel in February 2009. Under a bareboat charter the charterer pays substantially all of the vessel voyage and operating costs. Under a spot related time charter, the charterer pays substantially all of the vessel voyage costs. Under a spot charter, the vessel owner pays all such costs. Vessel voyage costs consist primarily of fuel, port charges and commissions.

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, operating costs 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.

All amounts in thousands of USD	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007			Year Ended December 31, 2006
Voyage Revenue		228,000			186,986			175,520
Voyage Expenses		(10,051	)		(47,122	)		(40,172	)
Net Voyage Revenue		217,950			139,864			135,348

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007

Voyage revenues increased by 21.9% from $187.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $228.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Voyage expenses decreased by 78.7% to $10.1 million in 2008 from $47.1 million in 2007. The increase in net voyage revenues was primarily the result of increase in the spot market rates during 2008. The average spot market rate for our fleet during 2008 was $54,900 per day compared to $35,600 during 2007, a 54.2% increase.

Vessel operating expenses were $35.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The average operating expenses for the vessels increased from approximately $8,000 per day per vessel for the fiscal year 2007 to approximately $8,800 per day per vessel during fiscal year 2008. The increase in vessel operating expenses was primarily a result of increased repair and maintenance activity in 2008. In addition, we experienced an industry wide price increases in vessel operating costs, in particular crewing costs, lubricating oil costs and repair and maintenance costs.

General and administrative expenses were $12.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to $12.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The general and administrative expenses in 2008 include a non-cash charge related to stock-based compensation to our Manager, Scandic American Shipping Ltd. of $3.6 million related to one follow-on offering in 2008 and costs of $1.4 million related to the deferred compensation plan for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. For further details of the management agreement and administrative expenses we refer you to the section “The Management Agreement” on page 18 and Note 5 of the annual financial statements included elsewhere herein. The general and administrative expenses in 2007 included a non-cash charge of $2.2 million of stock-based compensation to our Manager, related to one follow-on offering concluded last year and costs of $2.7 million related to the deferred compensation plan for the Company’s CEO.

Depreciation expense was $48.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to $42.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The increase is primarily the result of the depreciation of the costs deferred for the drydocking of seven vessels during 2008.

Net operating income was $121.3 million for year ended December 31, 2008 compared to $53.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, an increase of approximately 127.8%. This increase is primarily due to significant higher spot market rates during 2008 compared to 2007.

Interest income was $0.9 million for both the year ended December 31, 2008 and the year ended December 31, 2007. Interest income was derived from the excess cash in interim periods from the proceeds of the follow-on offering in May 2008 and the timing of subsequent repayment of debt during the year.

Interest expense was $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to $9.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The decrease is primarily due repayment of debt during 2008 with the proceeds from the follow-on offering concluded in May 2008.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006

Voyage revenues increased from $175.5 million for year ended December 31, 2006 to $187.0 million for year ended December 31, 2007, an increase of 6.5%. Voyage expenses increased by 17.2% to $47.1 million in 2007 from $40.2 million in 2006. The increase in net voyage revenues was primarily the result of having twelve vessels in operation during the entire year resulting in an increase in the number of revenue days by 26.1% offset by lower spot market rates for the period. The average spot market rate during 2007 was $35,600 per day compared to $44,500 per day for 2006, a decrease of 20.0%.

Vessel operating expenses were $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $21.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, an increase of approximately 52.1%. The increase is primarily the result of having all twelve vessels in operation for the entire year. The average operating expenses for the vessels increased from $7,200 per day per vessel in 2006 to $8,000 per day per vessel in 2007. The increases in daily operating expenses are primarily due to increases in vessel operating costs, in particular crewing costs, lubricating oil costs and repair and maintenance costs, which we believe to be industry-wide.

General and administrative expenses were $12.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $12.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The general and administrative expenses in 2006 included a non-cash charge of $6.3 million of stock-based compensation to, our Manager related to two public common stock offerings concluded last year. The general and administrative expenses in 2007 include a non-cash charge related to stock-based compensation to our Manager of $2.2 million related to one public common stock offering in 2007 and expenses of $2.7 million related to the pension plan for the Company’s CEO. We refer you to the section “Management Agreement” on page 18 for further details of the management agreement and Note 5 for further details of our general and administrative expenses.

Depreciation expense was $42.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $29.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, an increase of approximately 44.7%. The increase is primarily the result of owning twelve vessels for all of 2007.

Net operating income was $53.2 million for year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $72.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, a decrease of approximately 26.3%. This decrease is primarily due to lower spot market rates during 2007 compared to 2006 and higher average daily operating expenses.

Interest income was $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. Interest income was higher in 2006 in part because of the excess cash in interim periods from the proceeds of the two public common stock offerings and the timing of subsequent payments for vessels acquired during the year.

Interest expense was $9.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $6.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase is primarily due to the expansion of our fleet. Our policy in the current market conditions is to maintain a debt level of approximately $15 million per vessel.

B.	LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Our Credit Facility

In September 2005, the Company entered into a $300 million revolving credit facility, which is referred to as the 2005 Credit Facility. The 2005 Credit Facility provides funding for future vessel acquisitions and general corporate purposes. The 2005 Credit Facility cannot be reduced by the lender and there is no repayment obligation of the principal during the original five year term, which was scheduled to mature in September 2010. Amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility bear interest at an annual rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin between 0.70% and 1.20% (depending on the loan to vessel value ratio). The Company pays a commitment fee of 30% of the applicable margin on any undrawn amounts. Total commitment fees paid for the year ended December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 were $1.0 million and $0.8 million, respectively.

In September 2006, the Company increased the 2005 Credit Facility to $500 million. The other terms of the 2005 Credit Facility were not amended. In April 2008, the Company extended the term of the 2005 Credit Facility to September 2013. All other terms are unchanged. The undrawn amount of this facility as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $485.0 million and $394.5 million, respectively.

Borrowings under the 2005 Credit Facility are secured by first priority mortgages over the Company’s vessels and assignment of earnings and insurance. The Company is permitted to pay dividends in accordance with its dividend policy as long as it is not in default under the 2005 Credit Facility.

As of December 31, 2008, accrued interest and commitment fee in the aggregate were $0.1 million. This amount was paid during the first quarter of 2009. Total borrowings as of December 31, 2008 were $15 million.

The terms and conditions of the 2005 Credit Facility require compliance with certain restrictive covenants, which we believe are consistent with loan facilities incurred by other shipping companies. Under the 2005 Credit Facility, we are, among other things, required to:

maintain certain loan to vessel value ratios,

maintain a book equity of no less than $150.0 million,

remain listed on a recognized stock exchange, and

obtain the consent of the lenders prior to creating liens on or disposing of our vessels.

The 2005 Credit Facility provides that we may not pay dividends if following such payment we would not be in compliance with certain financial covenants or there is a default under the 2005 Credit Facility. The Company was in compliance with its restrictive covenants for the year ended December 31, 2008.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007

Cash flows provided by operating activities increased by 53.0% for the year ended December 31, 2008 to $127.9 million from $83.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 primarily due to significant higher spot market rates during 2008.

Cash flows used in investing activities decreased by 62.0% for the year ended December 31, 2008 to $10.1 million compared to $26.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The investing activities during 2008 represent vessel improvements, while the investing activities during 2007 represent both deposits and vessel improvements.

Cash flows used in financing activities increased by 79.5% for the year ended December 31, 2008 to $99.8 million compared to $55.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The financing activities represent (i) net repayment of debt under the 2005 Credit Facility of $90.5 million, (ii) payment of $2.3 million related to the extension of the 2005 Credit Facility, and (iii) dividends paid of $165.9 million, all of which were offset by proceeds from a follow-on offering of $158.9 million.

In May 2008, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of 4,310,000 common shares. The net proceeds of the offering were $158.9 million which were used to repay borrowings under the 2005 Credit Facility and prepare the Company for further expansions.

The Company believes that its borrowing capacity under the 2005 Credit Facility, together with its 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, 2007 COMPARED TO YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006

Cash flows provided by operating activities decreased by 21.6% for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $83.6 million from $106.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, primarily due to lower spot market rates during 2007, as described above, partially offset by an increase in accounts payable of $4.3 million.

Cash flows used in investing activities decreased by 91.7% for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $26.4 million compared to $317.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company acquired four vessels during 2006 compared to no vessel acquisitions during 2007. In November 2007, the Company agreed to acquire two Suezmax newbuildings one of which is expected to be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2009 and one of which is expected to be delivered by end of April 2010.

Cash flows provided by financing activities decreased 126.7% for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $-55.6 million compared to $208.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. The cash flows provided by financing activities were attributable to (i) net repayment of debt under the 2005 Credit Facility of $68.0 million, (ii) payment of deposit on contracts of $18.0 million and (iii) dividends paid of $107.3 million, offset by proceeds from a public common stock offering of $119.7 million. The net decrease is primarily attributable to one less public stock offering and a net repayment of debt rather than net borrowings under the 2005 Credit Facility.

In July 2007, the Company sold 3,000,000 shares in a public offering in the U.S. to repay borrowings under the 2005 Credit Facility, and to prepare the Company for further expansion. The offering was priced at $41.50 per share, and net proceeds to the Company were $119.7 million.

C.	RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, PATENTS AND LICENSES, ETC.

Not applicable.

D.	TREND INFORMATION

The oil tanker industry has been highly cyclical, experiencing volatility in charterhire rates and vessel values resulting from changes in the supply of and demand for crude oil and tanker capacity. See Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – The Tanker Market 2008.

E.	OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

We have not created, and are not party to, any special-purpose or off-balance sheet entities for the purpose of raising capital, incurring debt or operating our business. We do not have any arrangements or relationship with entities that are not consolidated into our financial statements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on the Company’s financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources that is material to investors.

F.	TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

As of December 31, 2008 significant contractual obligations consisted of our obligations as borrower under our 2005 Credit Facility and our obligations under the Management Agreement with Scandic American Shipping Ltd.

The following table sets out long-term financial and other commercial obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2008 (all figures in thousands of USD).

Contractual Obligations	Total		Less than 1 year		1-3 years		3-5 years		More than 5 years
2005 Credit Facility (1)		15,000		-		-		15,000		-
Interest Payments (2)		1,954		415		1,247		292		-
Commitment Fees (3)		4,861		1,033		3,101		727		-
Deposit in Contract(4)		211,330		148,755		62,575		-		-
Management Fees (5)		2,363		225		675		675		788
Total		235,508		150,428		67,598		16,694		788

Notes:
(1)	Refers to our obligation to repay indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2008
(2)	Refers to estimated interest payments over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2008 assuming a weighted average interest rate of 3.50% per annum.
(3)	Refers to estimated commitment fees over the term of the indebtedness outstanding as of December 31, 2008
(4)	Refers to payment obligations in connection with the agreement to acquire two newbuildings entered into in November 2007, and the agreement to acquire the double-hull Suezmax tanker Nordic Sprite entered into December 2008
(5)	Refers to the management fees payable to Scandic American Shipping Ltd. under the Management Agreement with the Manager.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

We prepare our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (US 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 1 – Business and summary of Significant Accounting Policies.

Revenue recognition

We generate a majority of our revenues from vessels operating in cooperative chartering arrangements based upon spot charters. Within the shipping industry, the two methods used to account for voyage revenues and expenses are the percentage of completion and the completed voyage methods. Most shipping companies, including our commercial managers under our cooperative arrangements are using the percentage of completion method. In applying the percentage of completion method, we believe that in most cases the discharge-to-discharge basis of calculating voyages more accurately reflects voyage results than the load-to-load basis. At the time of cargo discharge, we generally have information about the next load port and expected discharge port, whereas at the time of loading we are normally less certain what the next load port will be.

If actual results are not consistent with our estimates in applying the percentage of completion method, our revenues could be overstated or understated for any given period by the amount of such difference.

Long-lived assets and impairment

A significant part of the Company’s total assets consists of our vessels. The oil tanker market is highly cyclical and the useful lives of our vessels are principally dependent on of the technical condition of our vessels and other factors, such as future market demand for oil and future market supply of tanker capacity.

Our vessels are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of the vessel and its eventual disposition is less than the carrying amount of the vessel, the vessel is deemed impaired. The amount of the impairment is measured as the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of the vessel. These assessments are based on our judgment.

We are not aware of any indicators of impairments nor any regulatory changes or environmental liabilities that we anticipate will have a material impact on our current or future operations. The Company has performed analysis based on development in observable market transactions of undiscounted future cashflows and concluded that based on such analysis the vessels are not impaired.

Depreciable lives

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.

Drydocking

Our vessels are required to be drydocked approximately every 30 to 60 months for overhaul repairs and maintenance that cannot be performed while the vessels are in operation. We follow the deferral method of accounting for drydocking costs whereby actual costs incurred are deferred and are amortized on a straight-line basis through the expected date of the next drydocking. Ballast tank improvements are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis over a period of eight years. Major steel improvements are capitalized and amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining useful life of the vessel. Unamortized drydocking costs of vessels that are sold are written off to income in the year of the vessel's sale. The capitalized and unamortized drydocking costs are included in the book value of the vessels. Amortization expense of the drydocking costs is included in depreciation expense.

If we change our estimate of the next drydock date, we will adjust our annual amortization of drydocking expenditures.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) No. 157-2 (“FSP 157-2”), which delays the effective date of SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurement,” (“SFAS 157”) to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008 and interim periods with those fiscal years for all nonfinancial assets and liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually) until January 1, 2009 for calendar year end entities. The Company adopted SFAS 157, except as it applies to nonfinancial assets and liabilities as noted in FSP 157-2, beginning as from January 1, 2008. The partial adoption of SFAS 157 did not have any effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations and cash flows. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the adoption of SFAS 157, as it relates to nonfinancial assets and liabilities, will have on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R) “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141(R)”), which replaces SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations”. This statement establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree and the goodwill acquired. SFAS 141(R) also establishes disclosure requirements to enable the evaluation of the nature and financial effects of the business combination. SFAS 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. An entity may not apply it before that date. The Company must adopt this standard as of January 1, 2009. As the provisions of SFAS No. 141 (R) are applied prospectively, the impact to the Company cannot be determined until any such transaction occurs.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160 “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an Amendment of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51” (“SFAS 160”). This statement establishes accounting and reporting standards for ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent, the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest, changes in a parent’s ownership interest, and the valuation of retained noncontrolling equity investments when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. SFAS 160 also establishes disclosure requirements that clearly identify and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the interests of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS 160 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. The Company’s adoption of SFAS 160 did not have any impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In March 2008, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”. The new standard is intended to improve financial reporting about derivative instruments and hedging activities by requiring enhanced disclosures to enable investors to better understand their effects on an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. It is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early application encouraged. The adoption of SFAS 161 did not have any impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

ITEM 6.

DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES

A.	DIRECTORS AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT

Directors and Senior Management of the Company and the Manager

Pursuant to the Management Agreement with Scandic American Shipping Ltd., or the Manager, the Manager provides management, administrative and advisory services to us. The Manager is owned by a company controlled by Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The Manager may engage in business activities other than with respect to the Company.

Set forth below are the names and positions of the directors of the Company and executive officers of the Company and the Manager. The directors of the Company are elected annually, and each director elected holds office until a successor is elected. Officers of both the Company and the Manager are elected from time to time by vote of the respective board of directors and hold office until a successor is elected.

The Company


Name	Age	Position
Herbjørn Hansson	61	Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Andreas Ove Ugland	54	Vice Chairman and Director
Turid M. Sørensen	49	Chief Financial Officer
Rolf Amundsen	64	Chief Investor Relations Officer
Hon. Sir David Gibbons	81	Director
Torbjørn Gladsø	62	Director
Andrew W. March	53	Director
Paul J. Hopkins	61	Director
Richard H. K. Vietor	63	Director

The Manager


Name	Age	Position
Herbjørn Hansson	61	Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
Turid M. Sørensen	49	Chief Financial Officer
Rolf Amundsen	64	Chief Investor Relations Officer
Frithjof Bettum	47	Vice President Technical Operations & Chartering
Janne O. Foyn	39	Financial Manager
Jan Erik Langangen	59	Executive Vice President—Business Development and Legal

Certain biographical information with respect to each director and executive officer of the Company and the Manager listed above is set forth below.

Herbjørn Hansson earned his M.B.A. at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration and Harvard Business School. In 1974 he was employed by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association. In the period from 1975 to 1980, he was Chief Economist and Research Manager of INTERTANKO, an industry association whose members control about 70% of the world’s independently owned tanker fleet, excluding state owned and oil company fleets. During the 1980s, he was Chief Financial Officer of Kosmos/Andres Jahre, at the time one of the largest Norwegian based shipping and industry groups. In 1989, Mr. Hansson founded Ugland Nordic Shipping AS, or UNS, which became one of the world’s largest owners of specialized shuttle tankers. He served as Chairman in the first phase and as Chief Executive Officer as from 1993 to 2001 when UNS, under his management, was sold to Teekay Shipping Corporation, or Teekay, for an enterprise value of $780.0 million. He continued to work with Teekay, most recently as Vice Chairman of Teekay Norway AS, until he started working full-time for the Company on September 1, 2004. Mr. Hansson is the founder and has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since its establishment in 1995. He also is a member of various governing bodies of companies within shipping, insurance, banking, manufacturing, national/international shipping agencies including classification societies and protection and indemnity associations. Mr. Hansson is fluent in Norwegian and English, and has a command of German and French for conversational purposes.

Andreas Ove Ugland has been a director of the Company since February 1997 and Vice Chairman since 1997. Mr. Ugland has also served as director and Chairman of Ugland International Holding plc, a shipping/transport company listed on the London Stock Exchange, Andreas Ugland & Sons AS, Grimstad, Norway, Høegh Ugland Autoliners AS, Oslo and Buld Associates Inc., Bermuda. Mr. Ugland has had his whole career in shipping in the Ugland family owned shipping group.

Turid M. Sørensen was appointed Chief Financial Officer by the Board of Directors on February 6, 2006. Ms. Sørensen has a M.B.A. in Management Control from the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration and a bachelor degree in Business Administration from the Norwegian School of Management. She has 20 years of experience in the shipping industry. During the period from 1984 to 1987, she worked for Anders Jahre AS and Kosmos AS in Norway and held various positions within accounting and information technology. In the period from 1987 to 1995, Ms. Sørensen was Manager of Accounting and IT for Skaugen PetroTrans Inc., in Houston, Texas. After returning to Norway she was employed by Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA and Teekay Norway AS as Vice President, Accounting. From October 2004 until her appointment as Chief Financial Officer in February 2006, she served as our Treasurer and Controller.

Rolf Amundsen was appointed Chief Investor Relations Officer and Advisor to the Chairman by the Board of Directors on February 6, 2006 and prior to that time served as our Chief Financial Officer from June 2004. Mr. Amundsen has an M.B.A. in economics and business administration, and his entire career has been in international banking. Previously, Mr. Amundsen has served as the president of the financial analysts’ society in Norway. Mr. Amundsen served as the chief executive officer of a Nordic investment bank for many years, where he established a large operation for the syndication of international shipping investments.

Andrew W. March has been a director of the Company since June 2005. Mr. March also currently serves in a management position with Vitol S.A., an international oil trader, involved in supply, logistics and transport. From 1978 to 2004, Mr. March served in various positions with subsidiaries of BP p.l.c., an international oil major company. Most recently, from January 2001 to 2004, Mr. March was Commercial Director of BP Shipping Ltd., responsible for all aspects of the business including long term strategy. From 1986 to 2000, Mr. March was employed in various positions with BP Trading, serving as Global Product Trading Manager from 1999. Mr. March received his MBA from Liverpool University.

Sir David Gibbons has been a director of the Company since September 1995. Sir David served as the Premier of Bermuda from August 1977 to January 1982. Sir David has served as Chairman of The Bank of N.T. Butterfield and Son Limited from 1986 to 1997, Chairman of Colonial Insurance Co. Ltd. since 1986 and as Chief Executive Officer of Edmund Gibbons Ltd. since 1954. Sir David Gibbons is a member of our Audit Committee.

Richard H. K. Vietor has been a director of the Company since July 2007. Mr. Vietor is the Senator John Heinz Professor of Environmental Management at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration where he teaches courses on the regulation of business and the international political economy. He was appointed Professor in 1984. Before coming to Harvard Business School in 1978, Professor Vietor held faculty appointments at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the University of Missouri. He received a B.A. in economics from Union College in 1967, an M.A. in history from Hofstra University in 1971, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1975.

Paul J. Hopkins has been a director of the Company since June 2005. Until March 2008, Mr. Hopkins was also a Vice President and a director of Corridor Resources Inc., a Canadian publicly traded exploration and production company. From 1989 through 1993 he served with Lasmo as Project Manager during the start-up of the Cohasset/Panuke oilfield offshore Nova Scotia, the first offshore oil production in Canada. Earlier, Mr. Hopkins served as a consultant on frontier engineering and petroleum economic evaluations in the international oil industry. Mr. Hopkins was seconded to Chevron UK in 1978 to assist with the gas export system for the Ninian Field. From 1973, he was employed with Ranger Oil (UK) Limited, being involved in the drilling and production testing of oil wells in the North Sea. Through the end of 1972 he worked with Shell Canada as part of its offshore Exploration Group.

Torbjørn Gladsø has been a director of the Company since October 2003. Mr. Gladsø is a partner in Saga Corporate Finance AS. He has extensive experience within investment banking since 1978. He has been the Chairman of the Board of the Norwegian Register of Securities and Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Oslo Stock Exchange. Mr. Gladsø is Chairman of our Audit Committee.

Jan Erik Langangen has been the Executive Vice President, Business Development and Legal, of the Manager since November 2004. Mr. Langangen previously served as the Chief Financial Officer from 1979 to 1983, and as Chairman of the Board from 1987 to 1992, of Statoil, an oil and gas company that is controlled by the Norwegian government and that is the largest company in Norway. He also served as Chief Executive Officer of UNI Storebrand from 1985 to 1992. Mr. Langangen was also Chairman of the Board of the Norwegian Governmental Value Commission from 1998 to 2001. Mr. Langangen is a partner of Langangen & Helset, a Norwegian law firm and previously was a partner of the law firm Langangen & Engesæth from 1996 to 2000 and of the law firm Thune & Co. from 1994 to 1996. Mr. Langangen received a Masters of Economics from The Norwegian School of Business Administration and his law degree from the University of Oslo.

Frithjof Bettum was appointed Vice President—Technical Operations & Chartering of the Manager on October 1, 2005. Mr. Bettum has a Mechanical Engineering degree from Vestfold University College. Mr. Bettum has 21 years of experience in the shipping and the offshore business. From 1984 to 1992, Mr. Bettum was employed by Allum Engineering AS in Sandefjord, Norway where he served as project manager. At Allum Engineering AS Mr. Bettum worked on projects in the areas of engineering, the new building and conversion management of shuttle tankers, Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO), semi-submersible drilling units and the shore based manufacturer industry. From 1993 to 2001, Mr. Bettum was employed by Nordic American Shipping AS (which later became Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA) where he served as Vice President—Offshore. In 2004, Mr. Bettum joined Teekay Norway AS as Vice President Offshore where he was responsible for business development, the daily operations of the company and the conversion of shuttle tankers and offshore units.

Janne O. Foyn was appointed Financial Manager of the Manager on May 1, 2006. Ms. Foyn has a Registered Auditor degree from Bodø University College and Vestfold University College. Ms. Foyn has 11 years of experience in the shipping industry. During the period 1995 to 2001, she was employed by Deloitte & Touche Statsautoriserte Revisorer AS in Tønsberg, Norway where she served as an auditor. In the period from 2001 to 2005, she was employed by Ugland Nordic Shipping ASA and Teekay Norway AS as Accounting Manager. From 2005 until her appointment as Financial Manager in May 2006, she worked as an auditor for Inter Revisjon AS in Tønsberg, Norway.

B.	COMPENSATION

Compensation of Directors

The six non-employee directors received, in the aggregate, approximately $390,000 in cash fees for their services as directors during 2008. The Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors receives an additional annual cash retainer of $5,000 per year. The members of the Audit Committee receive an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000 each per year. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual cash retainer of $5,000 per year. We do not pay director fees to employee directors. We do, however, reimburse all of our directors for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with serving on our Board of Directors. Directors may receive restricted shares or other grants under our 2004 Stock Incentive Plan described below.

2004 Stock Incentive Plan

Under the terms of the Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, the directors, officers and certain key employees of the Company and the Manager are eligible to receive awards which include incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, dividend equivalent rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares and phantom stock units. A total of 400,000 common shares are reserved for issuance upon exercise of options, as restricted share grants or otherwise under the plan. Included under the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan are options to purchase common shares at an exercise price equal to $38.75, subject to annual downward adjustment if the payment of dividends in the related fiscal year exceeds a 3% yield calculated based on the initial strike price. During 2005 the Company granted, under the terms of the Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, an aggregate of 320,000 stock options that the Board of Directors had agreed to issue during 2004. These options vest in equal installments on each of the first four anniversaries of the grant dates. During 2006, the Company granted an aggregate of 16,700 restricted shares. No stock options were granted in 2006. The Company granted 10,000 stock options in 2007 at an exercise price equal to $35.17, subject to annual downward adjustment as described above. These options vest in equal installments on each of the first four anniversaries of the grant date. During 2008, a former Board member cancelled his stock incentive award in agreement with the Company and received compensation of $100,000.

Executive Pension Plan

In May 2007, the Board of Directors approved the implementation of an executive pension plan for Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, who has served in his present positions since the inception of the Company in 1995. Pursuant to this plan, the Company shall offer Mr. Hansson a pension of 66 percent of salary from 67 years of age, such pension to be fully earned following a service period of 11 years (from 2004 until 2015), in addition to normal disability coverage and contingent right of pension for his spouse, in line with the practice in Norway. Please see Note 6 of the financial statements for further information about this plan.

Employment Agreements

We have an employment agreement with Herbjørn Hansson, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Turid M. Sørensen, our Chief Financial Officer, and Rolf I. Amundsen, our Chief Investor Relations Officer and Advisor to the Chairman. Mr. Hansson does not receive any additional compensation for serving as a director or the Chairman of the Board. The aggregate compensation of our executive officers during 2008 was approximately $1.3 million. The aggregate compensation of our executive officers is expected to be approximately $1.5 million during 2009. On certain terms, the employment agreement may be terminated by us or Mr. Hansson upon six months’ written notice to the other party. The employment agreement with Ms. Sørensen may be terminated by us or by Ms. Sørensen upon six months’ written notice to the other party. The employment agreement with Mr. Amundsen may be terminated by us or Mr. Amundsen upon three months’ written notice to the other party.

C.	BOARD PRACTICES

The members of the Company’s board of directors serve until the next annual general meeting following his or her election to the board. The members of the current board of directors were elected at the annual general meeting held in 2007. The Company’s Board of Directors has established an Audit Committee, consisting of two independent directors, Messrs. Gladsø and Gibbons. Mr. Gladsø serves as the audit committee financial expert. The members of the Audit Committee receive additional remuneration of $25,000 in aggregate for serving on the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee provides assistance to the Company’s board of directors in fulfilling their responsibility to shareholders, and investment community relating to corporate accounting, reporting practices of the Company, and the quality and integrity of the financial reports of the Company. The Audit Committee, among other duties, recommends to the Company’s board of directors the independent auditors to be selected to audit the financial statements of the Company; meets with the independent auditors and financial management of the Company to review the scope of the proposed audit for the current year and the audit procedures to be utilized; reviews with the independent auditors, and financial and accounting personnel, the adequacy and effectiveness of the accounting and financial controls of the Company; and reviews the financial statements contained in the annual report to shareholders with management and the independent auditors.

Pursuant to an exemption for foreign private issuers, we are not required to comply with many of the corporate governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange that are applicable to U.S. listed companies, see Item 16G – Corporate Governance.

EMPLOYEES

As at December 31, 2008, the Company had two full-time employees and one part-time employee.

E.	SHARE OWNERSHIP

The following table sets forth information regarding the share ownership of the Company as of May 8, 2009 by its directors and officers. All of the shareholders are entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held.

Title	Identity of Person	No. of Shares	Percent of Class

Common	Herbjørn Hansson(1)	687,874	1.8%
	Hon. Sir David Gibbons		*
	Thorbjørn Gladsø		*
	Andrew W. March		*
	Paul J. Hopkins		*
	Andreas Ove Ugland		*
	Turid M. Sørensen		*
	Rolf Amundsen		*
	Richard Vietor		*

(1) Includes 675,874 shares held by the Manager, of which Mr. Hansson is the sole shareholder.

* Less than 1% of our outstanding shares of common stock.

A total of 240,000 stock options has been granted to the directors and officers listed above. For further information see Note 9.

ITEM 7.

MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

A.	MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS

The Company is not aware of any shareholder who beneficially owns 5% or more of the Company’s outstanding common stock.

B.	RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Since May 30, 2003, Scandic American Shipping Ltd., which is owned by a company controlled by Mr. Hansson and owned by Mr. Hansson and members of his family, has been our Manager pursuant to the Management Agreement with the Company. See Item 4—Information on the Company — Business Overview — The Management Agreement.

Mr. Jan Erik Langangen, Executive Vice President of the Manager, is a partner of Langangen & Helset Advokatfirma AS which in the past has also provided and may continue to provide legal services to us.

C.	INTERESTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL

Not Applicable.

ITEM 8.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

A.	CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION

See Item 18.

Legal Proceedings

To the best of the Company’s knowledge, the Company is not currently involved in any legal or arbitration proceedings that would have a significant effect on the Company’s financial position or profitability and no such proceedings are pending or known to be contemplated by governmental authorities.

Dividend Policy

Our policy is to declare quarterly dividends to shareholders, substantially equal to our net operating cash flow during the previous quarter after reserves as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine are required, taking into account contingent liabilities, the terms of our 2005 Credit Facility, our other cash needs and the requirements of Bermuda law. However, if we declare a dividend in respect of a quarter in which an equity issuance has taken place, we calculate the dividend per share as our net operating cash flow for the quarter (after taking into account the factors described above) divided by the weighted average number of shares over that quarter. Net operating cash flow represents net income plus depreciation and non-cash administrative charges. The dividend paid is the calculated dividend per share multiplied by the number of shares outstanding at the end of the quarter.

Total dividends paid in 2008 were $165.9 million or $4.89 per share. The dividend payments per share in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004 have been as follows:

Period	2008		2007		2006		2005		2004
1st Quarter		$0.50		$1.00		$1.88		$1.62		$1.15
2nd Quarter		1.18		1.24		1.58		1.15		1.70
3rd Quarter		1.60		1.17		1.07		0.84		0.88
4th Quarter		1.61		0.40		1.32		0.60		1.11
Total		$4.89		$3.81		$5.85		$4.21		$4.84

The dividend paid in any quarter is in respect of the results of the previous quarter.

The Company declared a dividend of $0.87 per share in respect of the fourth quarter of 2008 which was paid to shareholders in March 2009. In addition, the Company declared a dividend of $0.88 per share in respect of the first quarter of 2009 which will be paid to shareholders in June 2009.

B.	SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

Not applicable.

ITEM 9.

THE OFFER AND LISTING

Not applicable except for Item 9.A.4. and Item 9.C.

Share History and Markets

Since November 16, 2004, the primary trading market for our common shares has been the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, on which our shares are listed under the symbol “NAT.” The primary trading market for our common shares was the American Stock Exchange, or the AMEX, until November 15, 2004, at which time trading of our common shares on the AMEX ceased. The secondary trading market for our common shares was the Oslo Stock Exchange, or the OSE, until January 14, 2005, at which time trading of our common share on the OSE ceased.

The following table sets forth the high and low market prices for shares of our common stock as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and the Oslo Stock Exchange:

NYSE

AMEX

OSE

The year ended:

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

2004

$41.30

$35.26

$41.59

$15.00

NOK 300.00

NOK 115.00

2005(1)

$56.68

$28.60

N/A

NOK 225.00

NOK 205.00

2006

$41.70

$27.90

N/A

2007

$44.16

$29.50

N/A

2008

$42.00

$22.00

N/A


For the quarter ended:	NYSE HIGH		NYSE LOW
March 31, 2007		$37.53		$32.06
June 30, 2007		$41.24		$35.79
September 30, 2007		$40.20		$32.00
December 31, 2007		$36.49		$29.50
March 31, 2008		$34.30		$25.51
June 30, 2008		$42.00		$27.90
September 30, 2008		$41.39		$28.27
December 31, 2008		$36.00		$22.00

(1) The OSE numbers for 2005 are based on trading through January 14, 2005

The high and low market prices for our common shares by month since October 2008 have been as follows:


For the month:	NYSE HIGH		NYSE LOW
November 2008		$35.31		$24.03
December 2008		$36.00		$25.76
January 2009		$38.05		$28.23
February 2009		$30.73		$25.30
March 2009		$31.54		$22.25
April 2009		$32.50		$28.50

ITEM 10.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A.	SHARE CAPITAL

Not Applicable.

B.	MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

The following description of our capital stock summarizes the material terms of our memorandum of association and our bye-laws.

Under our Memorandum of Association, as amended, our authorized capital consists of 51,200,000 common shares having a par value of $0.01 per share.

The purposes and powers of the Company are set forth in Items 6 and 7 of our Memorandum of Association and in paragraphs (b) to (n) and (p) to (u) of the Second Schedule of the Bermuda Companies Act of 1981, or the Companies Act, which is attached as an exhibit to our Memorandum of Association. These purposes include the entering into of any guarantee, contract, indemnity or suretyship and to assure, support, secure, with or without the consideration or benefit, the performance of any obligations of any person or persons; and the borrowing and raising of money in any currency or currencies to secure or discharge any debt or obligation in any manner.

Our bye-laws provide that our board of directors shall convene and the Company shall hold annual general meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act at such times and places as the Board shall decide. Our board of directors may call special meetings at its discretion or as required by the Companies Act. Under the Companies Act, holders of one-tenth of our issued common shares may call special meetings of shareholders.

Bermuda law permits the bye-laws of a Bermuda company to contain a provision eliminating personal liability of a director or officer to the company for any loss arising or liability attaching to him by virtue of any rule of law in respect of any negligence default, breach of duty or breach of trust of which the officer or person may be guilty. Bermuda law also grants companies the power generally to indemnify directors and officers of the company if any such person was or is a party or threatened to be made a party to a threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a director and officer of the company or was serving in a similar capacity for another entity at the company’s request.

Our bye-laws do not prohibit a director from being a party to, or otherwise having an interest in, any transaction or arrangement with the Company or in which the Company is otherwise interested. Our bye-laws provide that a director who has an interest in any transaction or arrangement with the Company and who has complied with the provisions of the Companies Act and with our bye-laws with regard to disclosure of such interest shall be taken into account in ascertaining whether a quorum is present, and will be entitled to vote in respect of any transaction or arrangement in which he is so interested. Our bye-laws provide our board of directors the authority to exercise all of the powers of the Company to borrow money and to mortgage or charge all or any part of our property and assets as collateral security for any debt, liability or obligation. Our directors are not required to retire because of their age, and our directors are not required to be holders of our common shares. Directors serve for one year terms, and shall serve until re-elected or until their successors are appointed at the next annual general meeting.

Our bye-laws provide that each director, alternate director, officer, person or member of a committee, if any, resident representative, or his heirs, executors or administrators, which we refer to collectively as an indemnitee, will be indemnified and held harmless out of our funds to the fullest extent permitted by Bermuda law against all liabilities, loss, damage or expense (including liabilities under contract, tort and statute or any applicable foreign law or regulation and all reasonable legal and other costs and expenses properly payable) incurred or suffered by him as such director, alternate director, officer, person or committee member or resident representative (or in his reasonable belief that he is acting as any of the above). In addition, each indemnitee shall be indemnified against all liabilities incurred in defending any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in which judgment is given in such indemnitee’s favor, or in which he is acquitted.

There are no pre-emptive, redemption, conversion or sinking fund rights attached to our common shares. The holders of common shares are entitled to one vote per share on all matters submitted to a vote of holders of common shares. Unless a different majority is required by law or by our bye-laws, resolutions to be approved by holders of common shares require approval by a simple majority of votes cast at a meeting at which a quorum is present.

Special rights attaching to any class of our shares may be altered or abrogated with the consent in writing of not less than 75% of the issued and outstanding shares of that class or with the sanction of a resolution passed at a separate general meeting of the holders of such shares voting in person or by proxy.

Our Memorandum of Association and our bye-laws may be amended upon the consent of not less than two-thirds of the issued and outstanding common shares.

In the event of our liquidation, dissolution or winding up, the holders of common shares are entitled to share in our assets, if any, remaining after the payment of all of our debts and liabilities, subject to any liquidation preference on any outstanding preference shares.

Our bye-laws provide that our board of directors may, from time to time, declare and pay dividends out of contributed surplus. Each common share is entitled to dividends if and when dividends are declared by our board of directors, subject to any preferred dividend right of the holders of any preference shares.

There are no limitations on the right of non-Bermudians or non-residents of Bermuda to hold or vote our common shares.

Our bye-laws permit the Company to refuse to register the transfer of any common shares if the effect of that transfer would result in 50% or more of our aggregated issued share capital, or 50% or more of the outstanding voting power being held by persons who are resident for tax purposes in Norway or the United Kingdom.

Our bye-laws permit the Company to increase its capital, from time to time, with the consent of not less than two-thirds of the outstanding voting power of the Company’s issued and outstanding common shares.

C.	MATERIAL CONTRACTS

For a description of our 2005 Credit Facility, which was extended in April 2008, see Item 5 — Operating and Financial Review and Prospectus — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Our Credit Facility.

Otherwise, the Company has not entered into any material contracts outside the ordinary course of business during the past two years.

D.	EXCHANGE CONTROLS

The Company has been designated as a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, whose permission for the issue of the Common Shares was obtained prior to the offering thereof.

The transfer of shares between persons regarded as resident outside Bermuda for exchange control purposes and the issuance of Common Shares to or by such persons may be effected without specific consent under the Bermuda Exchange Control Act of 1972 and regulations thereunder. Issues and transfers of Common Shares involving any person regarded as resident in Bermuda for exchange control purposes require specific prior approval under the Bermuda Exchange Control Act 1972.

Subject to the foregoing, there are no limitations on the rights of owners of the Common Shares to hold or vote their shares. Because the Company has been designated as non-resident for Bermuda exchange control purposes, there are no restrictions on its ability to transfer funds in and out of Bermuda or to pay dividends to United States residents who are holders of the Common Shares, other than in respect of local Bermuda currency.

In accordance with Bermuda law, share certificates may be issued only in the names of corporations or individuals. In the case of an applicant acting in a special capacity (for example, as an executor or trustee), certificates may, at the request of the applicant, record the capacity in which the applicant is acting. Notwithstanding the recording of any such special capacity, the Company is not bound to investigate or incur any responsibility in respect of the proper administration of any such estate or trust.

The Company will take no notice of any trust applicable to any of its shares or other securities whether or not it had notice of such trust.

As an “exempted company”, the Company is exempt from Bermuda laws which restrict the percentage of share capital that may be held by non-Bermudians, but as an exempted company, the Company may not participate in certain business transactions including: (i) the acquisition or holding of land in Bermuda (except that required for its business and held by way of lease or tenancy for terms of not more than 21 years) without the express authorization of the Bermuda legislature; (ii) the taking of mortgages on land in Bermuda to secure an amount in excess of $50,000 without the consent of the Minister of Finance of Bermuda; (iii) the acquisition of securities created or issued by, or any interest in, any local company or business, other than certain types of Bermuda government securities or securities of another “exempted company, exempted partnership or other corporation or partnership resident in Bermuda but incorporated abroad; or (iv) the carrying on of business of any kind in Bermuda, except in so far as may be necessary for the carrying on of its business outside Bermuda or under a license granted by the Minister of Finance of Bermuda.

There is a statutory remedy under Section 111 of the Companies Act 1981 which provides that a shareholder may seek redress in the Bermuda courts as long as such shareholder can establish that the Company’s 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. However, this remedy has not yet been interpreted by the Bermuda courts.

The Bermuda government actively encourages foreign investment in “exempted” entities like the Company that are based in Bermuda but do not operate in competition with local business. In addition to having no restrictions on the degree of foreign ownership, the Company is subject neither to taxes on its income or dividends nor to any exchange controls in Bermuda. In addition, there is no capital gains tax in Bermuda, and profits can be accumulated by the Company, as required, without limitation. There is no income tax treaty between the United States and Bermuda pertaining to the taxation of income other than applicable to insurance enterprises.

TAXATION

Bermuda Tax Considerations

The Company is incorporated in Bermuda. Under current Bermuda law, the Company is not subject to tax on income or capital gains, and no Bermuda withholding tax will be imposed upon payments of dividends by the Company to its shareholders. No Bermuda tax is imposed on holders with respect to the sale or exchange of Shares. Furthermore, the Company has received from the Minister of Finance of Bermuda under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966, as amended, an assurance that, in the event that Bermuda enacts any legislation imposing any tax computed on profits or income, including any dividend or capital gains withholding tax, or computed on any capital asset, appreciation, or any tax in the nature of an estate, duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax shall not be applicable. The assurance further provides that such taxes, and any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, shall not be applicable to the Company or any of its operations, nor to the shares, debentures or other obligations of the Company, until March 2016.

United States Federal Income Tax Considerations

The following discussion is a summary of the material United States federal income tax considerations relevant to us and to a United States Holder and Non-United States Holder (each defined below) of our common shares. This discussion is based on advice received by us from Seward & Kissel LLP, our United States counsel. This discussion does not purport to deal with the tax consequences of owning common shares to all categories of investors, some of which (such as dealers in securities or currencies, investors whose functional currency is not the United States dollar, financial institutions, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, tax-exempt organizations, insurance companies, persons holding our common shares as part of a hedging, integrated, conversion or constructive sale transaction or a straddle, persons liable for alternative minimum tax and persons who are investors in pass-through entities) may be subject to special rules. This discussion only applies to shareholders who (i) own common shares as a capital asset and (ii) own less than 10% of our common shares. Shareholders are encouraged to consult their own tax advisors with respect to the specific tax consequences to them of purchasing, holding or disposing of common shares.

United States Taxation of the Company

Taxation of Operating Income: In General

Unless exempt from United States taxation under Code section 883 as amended, a foreign corporation is subject to United States federal income taxation in the manner described below in respect of any income that is derived from the use of vessels, from the hiring or leasing of vessels for use on a time, voyage or bareboat charter basis, or from the performance of services directly related to such use, which we refer to as Shipping Income, to the extent that such Shipping Income is derived from sources within the United States, referred to as United States-Source Shipping Income.

Shipping Income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be considered to be 50% derived from sources within the United States. Shipping Income that is attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States will be considered to be 100% derived from sources within the United States.

Shipping Income that is attributable to transportation exclusively between non-United States ports will be considered to be 100% derived from sources outside the United States. Shipping Income derived from sources outside the United States will not be subject to United States federal income tax.

Our vessels will be operated in various parts of the world and, in part, are expected to be involved in transportation of cargoes that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in United States ports. Accordingly, it is not expected that we will engage in transportation that gives rise to 100% United States-Source Shipping Income.

Exemption of Operating Income from United States Taxation

Pursuant to Code section 883, we will be exempt from United States taxation on our United States-Source Shipping Income if (i) we are organized in a foreign country that grants an equivalent exemption from income taxation (an “equivalent exemption”) to corporations organized in the United States, which we refer to as the Country of Organization Requirement, and (ii) either (A) more than 50% of the value of our common shares is owned, directly or indirectly, by individuals who are “residents” of such country or of another foreign country that grants an equivalent exemption to corporations organized in the United States, which we refer to as the 50% Ownership Test, or (B) our common shares are “primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market” in such country, in another country that grants an equivalent exemption to United States corporations, or in the United States, which we refer to as the Publicly-Traded Test.

Bermuda, the country in which we are incorporated, grants an equivalent exemption to United States corporations. Therefore, we will satisfy the Country of Organization Requirement and will be exempt from United States federal income taxation with respect to our United States-Source Shipping Income if we satisfy either the 50% Ownership Test or the Publicly-Traded Test.

We believe that we satisfied the Publicly-Traded Test for our 2008 taxable year. Under Treasury regulations interpreting Code section 883, stock of a corporation is treated as “primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market” in any taxable year if (i) the stock is primarily traded on a national securities exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (on which our common shares are traded) and satisfies certain trading volume and trading frequency tests, and (ii) the corporation complies with certain record keeping and reporting requirements.

However, a foreign corporation will not satisfy the Publicly-Traded Test if, subject to certain exceptions, 50% or more of the stock is beneficially owned (or is treated as owned under certain stock ownership attribution rules) by persons each of whom owns (or is treated as owning under certain stock ownership attribution rules) 5% or more of the stock, which we refer to as 5% Shareholders, for more than half the days during the taxable year.

We are not aware of any facts which would indicate that 50% or more of our common shares were actually or constructively owned by 5% Shareholders during our 2008 taxable year, although there can be no assurance that subsequent changes in the ownership of our common shares will not result in 50% or more of our common shares being so owned at any time in the future.

Accordingly, we expect that our common shares will be considered to be “primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market” and that we will, therefore, qualify for the Code section 883 exemption for our 2008 taxable year. However, because of the factual nature of the issues relating to this determination, no assurance can be given that we will qualify for the tax exemption in any future taxable year. If 5% Shareholders owned 50% or more of our common shares, then we would have to satisfy certain requirements regarding the identity and residence of our 5% shareholders. These requirements are onerous and there is no assurance that we could satisfy them.

United States Taxation of Gain on Sale of Vessels

Regardless of whether we qualify for exemption under Code section 883, we will generally not be subject to United States taxation with respect to gains realized on sales of vessels.

Four Percent Gross Basis Tax Regime

To the extent the benefits of Code section 883 are unavailable with respect to any item of United States-Source Shipping Income, such Shipping Income that is considered not to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States as discussed below, would be subject to a four percent tax imposed by Code section 887 on a gross basis, without benefit of deductions. Since under the sourcing rules described above, no more than 50% of our Shipping Income would be derived from United States sources, the maximum effective rate of United States federal income tax on our gross Shipping Income would never exceed two percent.

Net Basis and Branch Profits Tax Regime

To the extent the benefits of the Section 883 exemption are unavailable and our United States-Source Shipping Income is considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, as described below, any such “effectively connected” United States-Source Shipping Income, net of applicable deductions, would be subject to the U.S. federal corporate income tax currently imposed at rates of up to 35%. In addition, we may be subject to the 30% “branch profits” taxes on earnings effectively connected with the conduct of such trade or business, as determined after allowance for certain adjustments, and on certain interest paid or deemed paid attributable to the conduct of its U.S. trade or business.

Our United States-Source Shipping Income would be considered “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business only if we have, or are considered to have, a fixed place of business in the United States involved in the earning of Shipping Income and certain other requirements are satisfied.

We do not intend to have a fixed place of business in the United States involved in the earning of Shipping Income. Based on the foregoing and on the expected mode of our shipping operations and other activities, we believe that none of our United States-Source Shipping Income will be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business.

United States Taxation of United States Shareholders

As used herein, the term “United States Holder” means, for United States federal income tax purposes, a beneficial owner of common shares who is (A) an individual citizen or resident of the United States, (B) a corporation (or other entity treated as a corporation) created or organized in or under the laws of the United States or of any state or the District of Columbia, (C) an estate the income of which is includible in gross income for United States federal income tax purposes regardless of its source, or (D) a trust if a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust and one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

If a partnership holds the common shares, the tax treatment of a partner will generally depend on the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner in a partnership holding the common shares, you are urged to consult your tax advisors.

Distributions

Subject to the discussion of passive foreign investment companies below, any distributions made by us with respect to our common shares to a United States Holder will generally constitute dividends, which may be taxable as ordinary income or “qualified dividend income” as described in more detail below, to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under United States federal income tax principles. Distributions in excess of our earnings and profits will be treated first as a nontaxable return of capital to the extent of the United States Holder’s tax basis in his common shares on a dollar-for-dollar basis and thereafter as capital gain. Because we are not a United States corporation, United States Holders that are corporations will not be entitled to claim a dividends received deduction with respect to any distributions they receive from us. Dividends paid with respect to our common shares will generally be treated as “passive category income” or, in the case of certain types of United States Holders, “general category income” for purposes of computing allowable foreign tax credits for United States foreign tax credit purposes.

Dividends paid on our common shares to a United States Holder who is an individual, trust or estate (a “United States Individual Holder”) will generally be treated as “qualified dividend income” that is taxable to such United States Individual Holders at preferential tax rates (through 2010) provided that (1) the common shares are readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States (such as the New York Stock Exchange on which our common shares are traded); (2) we are not a passive foreign investment company for the taxable year during which the dividend is paid or the immediately preceding taxable year (as discussed below); (3) the United States Individual Holder has owned the common shares for more than 60 days in the 121-day period beginning 60 days before the date on which the common shares becomes ex-dividend, and (4) the United States Individual Holder is not under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or related positions. There is no assurance that any dividends paid on our common shares will be eligible for these preferential rates in the hands of a United States Individual Holder. Any dividends paid by the company which are not eligible for these preferential rates will be taxed as ordinary income to a United States Individual Holder. Legislation was previously introduced in the U.S. Congress which, if enacted in its present form, would preclude our dividends from qualifying for such preferential rates prospectively from the date of enactment. We cannot assure you as to whether this legislation will be enacted.

For taxable years through 2004, we were a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC. Therefore, the dividends paid by us through 2005 were not treated as “qualified dividend income” but rather were taxed as ordinary income to a United States Individual Holder. If we pay an “extraordinary dividend” on our common shares (generally, a dividend in an amount which is equal to or in excess of ten percent of a shareholder’s adjusted basis (or fair market value in certain circumstances) in the shareholder’s common shares) that is treated as “qualified dividend income,” then any loss derived by a United States Individual Holder from the sale or exchange of such common shares will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of such dividend.

Sale, Exchange or other Disposition of Common Shares

Assuming we do not constitute a PFIC for taxable years after 2004, a United States Holder generally will recognize taxable gain or loss upon a sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares in an amount equal to the difference between the amount realized by the United States Holder from such sale, exchange or other disposition and the United States Holder’s tax basis in such shares. Such gain or loss will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the United States Holder’s holding period is greater than one year at the time of the sale, exchange or other disposition. Such capital gain or loss will generally be treated as United States-source income or loss, as applicable, for United States foreign tax credit purposes. A United States Holder’s ability to deduct capital losses is subject to certain limitations.

Special rules may apply to a United States Holder who purchased shares before 2005 and did not make a timely QEF election or a mark-to-market election (as discussed below). Such United States Holders are encouraged to consult their tax advisors regarding the United States federal income tax consequences to them of the disposal of our common shares.

Passive Foreign Investment Company Considerations

Special United States federal income tax rules apply to a United States Holder that holds shares in a foreign corporation classified as a PFIC for United States federal income tax purposes. In general, we will be treated as a PFIC with respect to a United States Holder if, for any taxable year in which such holder held our common shares, either

at least 75% of our gross income for such taxable year consists of passive income (e.g., dividends, interest, capital gains and rents derived other than in the active conduct of a rental business), or

at least 50% of the average value of the assets held by us during such taxable year produce, or are held for the production of, passive income.

For purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, we will be treated as earning and owning our proportionate share of the income and assets, respectively, of any of our subsidiary corporations in which we own at least 25% of the value of the subsidiary’s shares. Income earned, or deemed earned, by us in connection with the performance of services would not constitute passive income. By contrast, rental income would generally constitute “passive income” unless we were treated under specific rules as deriving our rental income in the active conduct of a trade or business.

For taxable years through 2004, we were a PFIC. However, based on our current operations and future projections, we do not believe that we have been, or will become, a PFIC with respect to our taxable years after 2004. Although there is no legal authority directly on point, and we are not relying upon an opinion of counsel on this issue, our belief is based principally on the position that, for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from the time chartering and voyage chartering activities of our wholly-owned subsidiaries should constitute services income, rather than rental income. Correspondingly, such income should not constitute passive income, and the assets that we or our wholly-owned subsidiaries own and operate in connection with the production of such income, in particular, the vessels, should not constitute passive assets for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. We believe there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and Internal Revenue Service pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, we note that there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes. In the absence of any legal authority specifically relating to the statutory provisions governing passive foreign investment companies, the Internal Revenue Service or a court could disagree with our position. In addition, although we intend to conduct our affairs in a manner to avoid being classified as a PFIC, we cannot assure you that the nature of our operations will not change in the future.

As discussed more fully below, if we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year which included a United States Holder’s holding period in our common shares, then such United States Holder would be subject to different taxation rules depending on whether the United States Holder makes an election to treat us as a “Qualified Electing Fund,” which election we refer to as a “QEF election.” As an alternative to making a QEF election, a United States Holder should be able to make a “mark-to-market” election with respect to our common shares, as discussed below.

Taxation of United States Holders Making a Timely QEF Election

Pass-Through of Ordinary Earnings and Net Capital Gain. A United States Holder who makes a timely QEF election with respect to its common shares, or an Electing Holder, would report for United States federal income tax purposes his pro rata share of our “ordinary earnings” (i.e., the net operating income determined under United States federal income tax principles) and our net capital gain, if any, for our taxable year that ends with or within the taxable year of the Electing Holder. Our “net capital gain” is any excess of any of our net long term capital gains over our net short term capital losses and is reported by the Electing Holder as long term capital gain. Our net operating losses or net capital losses would not pass through to the Electing Holder and will not offset our ordinary earnings or net capital gain reportable to Electing Holders in subsequent years (although such losses would ultimately reduce the gain, or increase the loss, if any, recognized by the Electing Holder on the sale of his common shares).

For purposes of calculating our ordinary earnings, the cost of each vessel is depreciated on a straight-line basis over 18 years. Any gain on the sale of a vessel would be treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, to the extent of such depreciation deductions with respect to such vessel.

In general, an Electing Holder would not be taxed twice on its share of our income. Thus, distributions received from us by an Electing Holder are excluded from the Electing Holder’s gross income to the extent of the Electing Holder’s prior inclusions of our ordinary earnings and net capital gain. The Electing Holder’s basis in its shares would be increased by any amount included in the Electing Holder’s income under the QEF rules with respect to such holder. Distributions received by an Electing Holder, which are not includible in income because they have been previously taxed under the QEF rules, would decrease the Electing Holder’s tax basis in the common shares. Distributions, if any, in excess of such basis would be treated as capital gain (which gain will be treated as long term capital gain if the Electing Holder held its common shares for more than one year at the time of distribution).

Disposition of Common Shares. An Electing Holder would generally recognize capital gain or loss on the sale or exchange of common shares in an amount equal to the difference between the amount realized by the Electing Holder from such sale or exchange and the Electing Holder’s tax basis in the common shares. Such gain or loss would generally be treated as long term capital gain or loss if the Electing Holder’s holding period in the common shares at the time of the sale or exchange is more than one year. A United States Holder’s ability to deduct capital losses may be limited.

Making a QEF Election. A United States Holder makes a QEF election for a taxable year by completing and filing IRS Form 8621, Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund, in accordance with the instructions thereto. If we were aware that we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year, we would provide each United States Holder with all necessary information in order to make the QEF election described above.

Taxation of United States Holders Making a Timely Mark-to-Market Election

Mark-to-Market Regime. A United States Holder who does not make a QEF election may make a mark-to-market election under Code section 1296, provided that the common shares are regularly traded on a “qualified exchange.” A “qualified exchange” includes a foreign exchange that is regulated by a governmental authority in which the exchange is located and with respect to which certain other requirements are met. The New York Stock Exchange, on which the common shares are traded, is a “qualified exchange” for United States federal income tax purposes. A United States Holder who makes a timely mark-to-market election with respect to the common shares would include annually in the United States Holder’s income, as ordinary income, any excess of the fair market value of the common shares at the close of the taxable year over the United States Holder’s then adjusted basis in the common shares. The excess, if any, of the United States Holder’s adjusted basis at the close of the taxable year over the then fair market value of the common shares would be deductible in an amount equal to the lesser of the amount of the excess or the net mark-to-market gains on the common shares that the United States Holder included in income in previous years. A United States Holder’s basis in its common shares would be adjusted to reflect any income or loss amount recognized pursuant to the mark-to-market rules.

Disposition of Common Shares. A United States Holder who makes a timely mark-to-market election would recognize ordinary income or loss on a sale, exchange or other disposition of the common shares in an amount equal to the difference between the amount realized by the United States Holder from such sale, exchange or other disposition and the United States Holder’s tax basis in the common shares, provided, however, that any ordinary loss on the sale, exchange or other disposition may not exceed the net mark-to-market gains on the common shares that the United States Holder included in income in previous years. The amount of any loss in excess of such net mark-to market gains is treated as capital loss.

Making the Mark-to-Market Election. A United States Holder makes a mark-to-market election for a taxable year by completing and filing IRS Form 8621, Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund, in accordance with the instructions thereto.

Taxation of United States Holders Not Making a Timely QEF Election or a Timely Mark-to-Market Election

A United States Holder who does not make a timely QEF election or a timely mark-to-market election, which we refer to as a Non-Electing Holder, would be subject to special rules with respect to (i) any “excess distribution” (generally, the portion of any distributions received by the Non-Electing Holder on the common shares in a taxable year in excess of 125% of the average annual distributions received by the Non-Electing Holder in the three preceding taxable years, or, if shorter, the Non-Electing Holder’s holding period for the common shares), and (ii) any gain realized on the sale or other disposition of common shares. Under these rules, (i) the excess distribution or gain would be allocated ratably over the Non-Electing Holder’s holding period for the common shares; (ii) the amount allocated to the current taxable year, and any taxable year prior to the first taxable year in which we were a PFIC, would be taxed as ordinary income; and (iii) the amount allocated to each of the other prior taxable years would be subject to tax at the highest rate of tax in effect for the applicable class of taxpayer for that year, and an interest charge for the deemed deferral benefit would be imposed with respect to the resulting tax attributable to each such other taxable year. If a Non-Electing Holder dies while owning common shares, the Non-Electing Holder’s successor would be ineligible to receive a step-up in tax basis of those common shares.

Distributions received by a Non-Electing Holder that are not “excess distributions” would be includible in the gross income of the Non-Electing Holder as dividend income to the extent that such distributions are paid out of our current or accumulated earnings and profits as determined under United States federal income tax purposes. Such dividends would not be eligible to be treated as “qualified dividend income” eligible for preferential tax rates. Distributions in excess of our current or accumulated earnings and profits would be treated first as a return of the United States Holder’s tax basis in the common shares (thereby increasing the amount of any gain or decreasing the amount of any loss realized on the subsequent sale or disposition of such common shares) and thereafter as capital gain.

Taxation of United States Holders Who Acquired Shares Before 2005

We were a passive foreign investment company through the 2004 taxable year. Therefore, a United States Holder who acquired our common shares before 2005 may be subject to special rules with respect to our common shares. In particular, a United States Holder who did not make a timely QEF Election or a mark-to-market election may continue to be subject to the passive foreign investment company rules with respect to our common shares. Such United States Holders are encouraged to consult their tax advisors regarding the application of these rules as well as the availability of certain elections which may ameliorate the application of these rules.

United States Federal Income Taxation of “Non-United States Holders”

A beneficial owner of common shares (other than a partnership) that is not a United States Holder is referred to herein as a “Non-United States Holder.”

Dividends on Common Shares

Non-United States Holders generally will not be subject to United States federal income tax or withholding tax on dividends received from us with respect to our common shares, unless that income is effectively connected with the Non-United States Holder’s conduct of a trade or business in the United States. If the Non-United States Holder is entitled to the benefits of a United States income tax treaty with respect to those dividends, that income is taxable only if it is attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the Non-United States Holder in the United States.

Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Common Shares

Non-United States Holders generally will not be subject to United States federal income tax or withholding tax on any gain realized upon the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares, unless:

the gain is effectively connected with the Non-United States Holder’s conduct of a trade or business in the United States (and, if the Non-United States Holder is entitled to the benefits of an income tax treaty with respect to that gain, that gain is attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the Non-United States Holder in the United States); or

the Non-United States Holder is an individual who is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the taxable year of disposition and other conditions are met.

If the Non-United States Holder is engaged in a United States trade or business for United States federal income tax purposes, the income from the common shares, including dividends and the gain from the sale, exchange or other disposition of the common shares, that is effectively connected with the conduct of that trade or business will generally be subject to regular United States federal income tax in the same manner as discussed in the previous section relating to the taxation of United States Holders. In addition, if you are a corporate Non-United States Holder, your earnings and profits that are attributable to the effectively connected income, which are subject to certain adjustments, may be subject to an additional branch profits tax at a rate of 30%, or at a lower rate as may be specified by an applicable income tax treaty.

Backup Withholding and Information Reporting

In general, dividend payments, or other taxable distributions, made within the United States to you will be subject to information reporting requirements if you are a non-corporate United States Holder. Such payments may also be subject to backup withholding tax if you are a non-corporate United States Holder and you:

fail to provide an accurate taxpayer identification number;

are notified by the Internal Revenue Service that you have failed to report all interest or dividends required to be shown on your federal income tax returns; or

in certain circumstances, fail to comply with applicable certification requirements.

Non-United States Holders may be required to establish their exemption from information reporting and backup withholding by certifying their status on Internal Revenue Service Form W-8BEN, W-8ECI or W-8IMY, as applicable.

If you are a Non-United States Holder and you sell your common stock to or through a United States office or broker, the payment of the proceeds is subject to both United States backup withholding and information reporting unless you certify that you are a non-United States person, under penalties of perjury, or you otherwise establish an exemption. If you are a Non-United States Holder and you sell your common stock through a non-United States office of a non-United States broker and the sales proceeds are paid to you outside the United States, then information reporting and backup withholding generally will not apply to that payment. However, United States information reporting requirements, but not backup withholding, will apply to a payment of sales proceeds, even if that payment is made to you outside the United States, if you sell your common stock through a non-United States office of a broker that is a United States person or has some other contacts with the United States. Such information reporting requirements will not apply, however, if the broker has documentary evidence in his records that you are a non-United States person and certain other conditions are met, or you otherwise establish an exemption.

Backup withholding tax is not an additional tax. Rather, you generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld under backup withholding rules that exceed your income tax liability by filing a refund claim with the Internal Revenue Service.

F.	DIVIDENDS AND PAYING AGENTS

Not Applicable.

G.	STATEMENT BY EXPERTS

Not Applicable.

H.	DOCUMENTS ON DISPLAY

The Company is subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In accordance with these requirements we file reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These materials, including this annual report and the accompanying exhibits may be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the Commission at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the public reference room by calling 1 (800) SEC-0330, and you may obtain copies at prescribed rates from the Public Reference Section of the Commission at its principal office in Washington, D.C. The SEC maintains a website (http://www.sec.gov.) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC. In addition, documents referred to in this annual report may be inspected at the Company’s headquarters at LOM Building, 27 Reid Street, Hamilton, HM11, Bermuda.

We furnish holders of our common shares with annual reports containing audited financial statements and a report by our independent public accountants, and intend to make available quarterly reports containing selected unaudited financial data for the first three quarters of each fiscal year. The audited financial statements will be prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles. As a “foreign private issuer,” we are exempt from the rules under the Securities Exchange Act prescribing the furnishing and content of proxy statements to shareholders. While we intend to furnish proxy statements to shareholders in accordance with the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, those proxy statements do not conform to Schedule 14A of the proxy rules promulgated under the Exchange Act. All reports, proxy statements and other information filed by us with the New York Stock Exchange may be inspected at the New York Stock Exchange’s offices at 20 Broad Street, New York, New York 10005. In addition, as a “foreign private issuer,” we are exempt from the rules under the Exchange Act relating to short swing profit reporting and liability.

I.	SUBSIDIARY INFORMATION

Not applicable.

ITEM 11.

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

The Company is exposed to market risk from changes in interest rates related to the variable rate of the Company’s borrowings, or the Loan under our 2005 Credit Facility.

Amounts borrowed under the 2005 Credit Facility bears interest at a rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin between 0.70% to 1.20% per year (depending on the loan to vessel value ratio). Increasing interest rates could affect our future profitability. In certain situations, the Company may enter into financial instruments to reduce the risk associated with fluctuations in interest rates.

A 100 basis point increase in LIBOR would have resulted in an increase of approximately $0.5 million in our interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2008.

The Company is exposed to the spot market. 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. Changes in demand for transportation of oil over longer distances and supply of tankers to carry that oil may materially affect our revenues, profitability and cash flows. Twelve of our thirteen vessels are currently operated in the spot market or on spot market related time charters. We believe that over time, spot employment generates premium earnings compared to longer-term employment.

We estimate that during 2008, a $1,000 per day decrease in the spot market rate would have decreased our voyage revenue by approximately $3.8 million.

ITEM 12.

DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES

Not Applicable.

PART II

ITEM 13.

DEFAULTS, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES

Not Applicable.

ITEM 14.

MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not Applicable.

ITEM 15.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

A.	DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

Pursuant to Rules 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Company’s management, under the supervision and with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2008. The term disclosure controls and procedures means controls and other procedures of an issuer that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Act is accumulated and communicated to the issuer’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

B.	MANAGEMENT’S ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management and board of directors regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of published financial statements for external purposes in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective may not prevent or detect misstatements and can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008. In making this assessment, management used the criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (‘‘COSO’’) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Based on this assessment, management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2008, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria.

C.	ATTESTATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM.

The Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 has been audited by Deloitte AS, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report included in this annual report.

D.	CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING.

There have been no changes in internal controls over financial reporting (identified in connection with management’s evaluation of such internal controls over financial reporting) that occurred during the year covered by this annual report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

ITEM 16.

RESERVED.

ITEM 16A.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT

The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Torbjørn Gladsø is an audit committee financial expert and the Chairman of the committee. Mr. Gladsø is “independent” as determined in accordance with the rules of the New York Stock Exchange.

ITEM 16B.

CODE OF ETHICS.

The Company has adopted a code of ethics that applies to all of the Company’s employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller. The Code may be downloaded at our website (www.nat.bm). Additionally, any person, upon request, may ask for a hard copy of electronic file of the Code. If we make any substantive amendment to the Code of Ethics or grant any waivers, including any implicit waiver, from a provision of our Code of Ethics, we will disclose the nature of that amendment or waiver on our website. During the year ended December 31, 2008, no such amendment was made or waiver granted.

ITEM 16C.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

A.	AUDIT FEES

The Company’s Board of Directors has established preapproval and procedures for the engagement of the Company’s independent public accounting firms for all audit and non-audit services. The following table sets forth, for the two most recent fiscal years, the aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by our principal accountant, Deloitte AS, for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements and services provided by the principal accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the two most recent fiscal years.

FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008			$197,974
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007			$336,126