DORIAN LPG LTD._March 31, 2025
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025
or
☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number: 001-36437
Dorian LPG Ltd.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
27 Signal Road, Stamford, CT 06902
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (203) 674-9900
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
Title of Each Class Trading Symbol Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share LPG New York Stock Exchange
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐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. Yes☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ☒ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☐
Smaller reporting company ☐ Emerging growth company ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐No ☒
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates, based upon the closing price of common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange as of September 30, 2024, was approximately $1,265,256,517. For this purpose, all outstanding shares of common stock have been considered held by non-affiliates, other than the shares beneficially owned by directors, officers and shareholders of 10% or more of the registrant’s outstanding common shares, without conceding that any of the excluded parties are "affiliates" of the registrant for purposes of the federal securities laws. As of May 23, 2025, there were 42,647,720 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed by the registrant in connection with its 2025 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I.
ITEM 1. BUSINESS 1
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS 30
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS 60
ITEM 1C. CYBERSECURITY 60
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES 61
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 62
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES 62
PART II.
ITEM 6. RESERVED 65
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK 81
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA 82
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES 82
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION 83
ITEM 9C. DISCLOSURE REGARDING FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS THAT PREVENT INSPECTION 83
PART III.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 84
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION 84
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES 84
PART IV.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES 85
ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY 85
Table of Contents
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), including analyses and other information based on forecasts of future results and estimates of amounts not yet determinable and statements relating to our future prospects, developments and business strategies. We intend for these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provided for under the sections referenced in the immediately preceding sentence and the PSLRA. Forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “might,” “pending,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seeks,” “should,” “targets,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions, terms and phrases, including references to assumptions.
The forward-looking statements in this report are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions. These assumptions include, without limitation, 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 that 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.
In addition to important factors and matters discussed elsewhere in this report, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, important factors that, in our view, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include:
● our future operating or financial results;
● the strength of world economies;
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
● the adequacy of our insurance coverage in the event of a catastrophic event;
Table of Contents
● if we are required to pay tax on U.S. source income;
● if we are treated as a “passive foreign investment company”; and
Actual results could differ materially from expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements if one or more of the underlying assumptions or expectations proves to be inaccurate or is not realized. You should thoroughly read this report with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from and worse than what we expect. Other sections of this report include additional factors that could adversely impact our business and financial performance. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties emerge from time to time and it is not possible for our management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. We qualify all of the forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.
We caution readers of this report not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements contained herein are made only as of the date of this report, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Table of Contents
PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
Unless otherwise indicated, references to "Dorian," the "Company," "we," "our," "us," or similar terms refer to Dorian LPG Ltd. and its subsidiaries. We use the term "VLGC" to refer to very large gas carriers and “VLGC/AC” to refer to very large gas carriers that are purpose built to transport ammonia in addition to LPG. We use the term "LPG" to refer to liquefied petroleum gas and we use the term "cbm" to refer to cubic meters in describing the carrying capacity of our vessels. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to "U.S. dollars," "USD," and "$" in this report are to the lawful currency of the United States of America.
Overview
Dorian was incorporated on July 1, 2013 under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, is headquartered in the United States and is engaged in the transportation of LPG. Specifically, Dorian and its subsidiaries are focused on owning and operating VLGCs in the LPG shipping industry. Our founding executives have managed vessels in the LPG shipping market since 2002. Our fleet currently consists of twenty-five VLGCs, including one dual-fuel 84,000 cbm ECO-design VLGC, or our Dual-fuel ECO VLGC; nineteen fuel-efficient 84,000 cbm ECO-design VLGCs, or our ECO VLGCs; one 82,000 cbm modern VLGC; three time chartered-in dual fuel Panamax size VLGCs; and one time chartered-in ECO Panamax VLGC. The twenty-five VLGCs in our fleet, including the four time chartered-in vessels, as of May 23, 2025, have an aggregate carrying capacity of approximately 2.1 million cbm and an average age of 8.9 years. On November 24, 2023, we entered into an agreement for a newbuilding Very Large Gas Carrier / Ammonia Carrier (“VLGC/AC”), with a cargo carrying capacity of 93,000 cbm that can transport LPG or ammonia and is expected to be delivered from Hanwha Ocean Co. Ltd. in the second calendar quarter of 2026. We provide in-house commercial services for all of our vessels, including our vessels deployed in the Helios Pool (defined below), which may also receive commercial management services from MOL Energia (defined below). Excluding our time chartered-in vessels, we provide in-house technical management services for all of our vessels, including our vessels deployed in the Helios Pool.
Currently, sixteen of our ECO VLGCs, including one of our time chartered-in ECO VLGCs, are fitted with scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions. Vessels fitted with scrubbers allow us to reduce our emissions and to burn less refined fuel, which is frequently cheaper than more refined, lower sulfur grades. When the cost of more refined fuel exceeds that of less refined fuel, we are typically able to earn a higher TCE for spot voyages and to potentially contract time charters at higher rates compared to vessels without scrubbers. Additionally, one of the chartered-in dual-fuel Panamax size VLGCs is equipped with a shaft generator, which generates additional electricity that can be used to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions.
On April 1, 2015, we and MOL Energia Pte. Ltd. (“MOL Energia”), formerly known as Phoenix Tankers Pte. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd., an unaffiliated third party, began operation of Helios LPG Pool LLC, (the “Helios Pool”), a joint venture owned 50% by us and 50% by MOL Energia. We believe that the operation of certain of our VLGCs in this pool allows us to achieve better market coverage. Vessels entered into the Helios Pool are commercially managed jointly by Dorian LPG (DK) ApS, our wholly-owned subsidiary, and MOL Energia. The members of the Helios Pool share in the net pool revenues generated by the entire group of vessels participating in the pool, weighted according to certain technical vessel characteristics, and net pool revenues are distributed as variable rate time charter hire to each participant. The vessels entered into the Helios Pool may operate either in the spot market, pursuant to contracts of affreightment, or COAs, or on time charters of two years' duration or less. We and MOL Energia have agreed that the Helios Pool will have a right of first refusal to undertake any time charter with an original duration greater than two years. As of May 23, 2025, the Helios Pool operated twenty-eight VLGCs, including twenty-five vessels from our fleet and three MOL Energia vessels.
1
Table of Contents
Our Fleet
The following table sets forth certain information regarding our fleet as of May 23, 2025:
Scrubber Time
Capacity ECO Equipped Charter-Out
Dorian VLGCs
Total 1,762,000
Time chartered-in VLGCs
Future Diamond(7) 80,876 Hyundai 2020 X S Pool(5) —
HLS Citrine(8) 86,090 Hyundai 2023 X DF Pool(5) —
HLS Diamond(9) 86,090 Hyundai 2023 X DF Pool(5) —
Cristobal(10) 86,980 Hyundai 2023 X DF Pool(5) —
(2) Represents calendar year quarters.
2
Table of Contents
The LPG Shipping Industry
International seaborne LPG transportation services are generally provided by two types of operators: LPG distributors and traders and independent shipowners. Traditionally the main trading route in our industry has been the transport of LPG from the Arabian Gulf to Asia. With the emergence of the United States as a major LPG export hub, the United States Gulf to Asia and United States to Europe have become important trade routes. Vessels are generally operated under time charters, bareboat charters, spot charters, or COAs. LPG distributors and traders use their fleets not only to transport their own LPG, but also to transport LPG for third-party charterers in direct competition with independent owners and operators in the tanker charter market. We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand of available vessels. Generally, we compete for charters based upon charter rate, customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation and vessel specifications (size, age and condition). We also believe that our in-house technical and commercial management allows us to provide superior customer service and reliability that enhances our relationships with our charterers. Our industry is subject to strict environmental regulation, including the treatment of ballast water and greenhouse gas emissions regulations, and we believe our modern, ECO-class fleet and our high level of crew training and vessel maintenance make us a preferred provider of VLGC tonnage. For more information with respect to the aforementioned environmental regulations, please see “Item 1. Business—Environmental and Other Regulation in the Shipping Industry.”
Our Customers
Our customers, either directly or through the Helios Pool, include or have included global energy companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., China International United Petroleum & Chemicals Co., Ltd., Royal Dutch Shell plc, Equinor ASA, Total S.A., and Energy Transfer Partners, commodity traders such as Glencore plc, Itochu Corporation, Bayegan Group, Gunvor Group, and the Vitol Group and importers such as E1 Corp., Indian Oil Corporation, SK Gas Co. Ltd., and Astomos Energy Corporation, or subsidiaries of the foregoing. See “Item 7. Management Discussion and Analysis—Overview” for a discussion of our customers that accounted for more than 10% of our total revenues and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—We expect to be dependent on a limited number of customers for a material part of our revenues, and failure of such customers to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses or negatively impact our results of operations and cash flows.” For the years ended March 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023 approximately 97%, 95% and 94% of our revenues, respectively, were generated through the Helios Pool as net pool revenues—related party. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—We, and the Helios Pool, operate exclusively in the VLGC segment of the LPG shipping industry. Due to the general lack of industry diversification, adverse developments in the LPG shipping industry may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.”
We intend to continue to pursue a balanced chartering strategy by employing our vessels on a mix of multi-year time charters, some of which may include a profit-sharing component, shorter-term time charters, spot market voyages and COAs. As of May 23, 2025, we do not currently have a vessel on a fixed time charter outside of the Helios Pool and three of our VLGCs are on Pool-TCO within the Helios Pool. See “Our Fleet” above for more information.
Further, each of our vessels serves the same type of customer, has similar operations and maintenance requirements, and operates in the same regulatory environment. Based on this, we have determined that we operate in one reportable segment, the international transportation of LPG. Furthermore, when we charter a vessel to a charterer, the charterer is free to trade the vessel worldwide (subject to applicable laws and sanctions regimes) and, as a result, the disclosure of geographic information is impracticable.
Competition
LPG carrier capacity is primarily a function of the size of the existing world fleet, the number of newbuildings being delivered and the scrapping of older vessels. According to industry sources, in the VLGC sector in which we operate as of May 23, 2025, there were 402 vessels with an aggregate carrying capacity of 33.6 million cbm in the world fleet and 108 vessels (including 65 ammonia carriers) with 9.7 million cbm of capacity on order for delivery by the end of 2029.
3
Table of Contents
Our largest competitors for VLGC shipping services include BW LPG Ltd., or BWLPG; Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, or NYK Line; and Petredec Pte. Ltd., or Petredec. According to industry sources, there were approximately 115 owners in the worldwide VLGC fleet as of May 23, 2025, with the top ten owners possessing 41% of the total fleet on a vessel count basis. Competition for the transportation of LPG depends on the price, vessel position, size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel to the charterer. Our twenty-one VLGCs (excluding the four-time chartered-in vessels) have an average age of 10.0 years compared to the global VLGC fleet’s average age of 11.4 years. Refer to “Item 1A. Risk Factors—We face substantial competition in trying to expand relationships with existing customers and obtain new customers.”
Seasonality
Liquefied gases are primarily used for industrial and domestic heating, as chemical and refinery feedstock, as transportation fuel and in agriculture. The LPG shipping market historically has been stronger in the spring and summer months in anticipation of increased consumption of propane and butane for heating during the winter months. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and the supply of certain commodities. Demand for our vessels therefore may be stronger in our quarters ending June 30 and September 30 and relatively weaker during our quarters ending December 31 and March 31, although 12-month time charter rates tend to smooth out these short-term fluctuations and recent LPG shipping market activity has not yielded the typical seasonal results. The increase in petrochemical industry buying has contributed to less marked seasonality than in the past, but there can no guarantee that this trend will continue. To the extent any of our time charters expire during the typically weaker fiscal quarters ending December 31 and March 31, it may not be possible to re-charter our vessels at similar rates. As a result, we may have to accept lower rates or experience off-hire time for our vessels, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results.
Human Capital
As of March 31, 2025, we employed 93 shore-based persons in our offices in the United States, Greece, and Denmark, and had approximately 494 seafaring staff serving on our technically managed vessels. Seafarers are sourced from seafarer recruitment and placement service agencies and are employed with short-term employment contracts.
We recognize that the success of our Company is dependent upon the talents and dedication of our staff, and we are committed to investing in their success. We focus on attracting, developing and retaining a team of highly talented and motivated individuals. We conduct periodic assessments of our pay and benefit practices to help ensure that staff members are compensated fairly and competitively. The Company provides competitive compensation and benefits. In addition to salaries for our shore-based employees, our compensation programs typically include annual bonuses, stock-based compensation awards, company-sponsored retirement savings plans with employer matching opportunities, healthcare and insurance benefits, flexible spending accounts, life insurance, paid time off, family leave, and employee assistance programs.
We support meaningful learning and development opportunities. We have formal and informal training programs available and offer reimbursement for qualified advanced education programs, workshops, conferences, forums and certifications, and other classes.
The health and safety of our staff is of paramount importance to us and we regularly monitor various health and safety measures intended to address safety and public health concerns. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. We employ Ukrainian and Russian seafarers and during the conflict we began providing our Ukrainian and Russian seafarers, if they choose, with safe accommodation outside of Ukraine and Russia for both them and their families.
We seek to honor the dignity of each person by fostering a culture of inclusion. We embrace diverse voices and experiences, support programs and resources that build an authentic and respectful workplace, and provide opportunities for each person to contribute meaningfully. We believe a diverse workforce, representing a broad spectrum of abilities and perspectives, enables us to innovate, collaborate and better deliver to our customers. Additionally, we have joined the All Aboard Alliance and, together with other industry leaders, we are committed to have a sustainable, progressive, and innovative maritime industry both at sea and onshore.
4
Table of Contents
Classification, Inspection and Maintenance
Every large commercial seagoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. A classification society certifies that a vessel is “in class,” signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and 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.
For maintenance of the class certificate, regular and special surveys of hull, machinery, including the electrical plant and any special equipment classed, are required to be performed by the classification society, to ensure continuing compliance. The classification societies provide guidelines applicable to LPG vessels relating to extended intervals for drydocking. Every vessel is required to be drydocked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel. For vessels under 15 years of age, an underwater inspection can be conducted in lieu of drydocking and all required work can be conducted concurrently with the special survey. Certain cargo vessels that meet the system requirements set by classification societies may qualify for extended drydocking, which extends the 5-year period to 7.5 years, by replacing certain dry-dockings with in-water surveys. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a "recommendation" which must be rectified by the shipowner within prescribed time limits. The classification society also undertakes on request of the flag state other surveys and checks that are required by the regulations and requirements of that flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned. If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements and financing arrangements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
Most insurance underwriters and lenders require a vessel to be certified as “in class” by a classification society, which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies, or the IACS. In December 2013, the IACS adopted harmonized Common Structure Rules, or “the Rules,” that align with International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by vessels, or the IMO, goal standards and apply to oil tankers and bulk carriers contracted for construction on or after July 1, 2015. The Rules attempt to create a level of consistency between IACS Societies. Our technically managed VLGCs are currently classed with either Lloyd’s Register, the American Bureau of Shipping, or ABS, or Det Norske Veritas, all members of the IACS. All of the vessels in our fleet have been awarded International Safety Management, or ISM, certification and are currently “in class.”
We also carry out inspections of the ships, including with a view towards compliance under the Ship Inspection Report Programme (“SIRE”) and United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) requirements, as applicable, on a regular basis; both at sea and while the vessels are in port. The results of these inspections are documented in a report containing recommendations for improvements to the overall condition of the vessel, maintenance, safety and crew welfare. Based in part on these evaluations, we create and implement a program of continual maintenance and improvement for our vessels and their systems.
Safety, Management of Ship Operations and Administration
Safety is our top operational priority. Our vessels are operated in a manner intended to protect the safety and health of the crew, the general public and the environment. We actively manage the risks inherent in our business and are committed to preventing incidents that threaten safety, such as groundings, fires and collisions. We are also committed to reducing emissions and waste generation. We have established key performance indicators to facilitate regular monitoring of our operational performance. We set targets on an annual basis to drive continuous improvement, and we review performance indicators every three months to determine if remedial action is necessary to reach our targets. Our shore staff performs a full range of technical, commercial and business development services for us. This staff also provides administrative support to our operations in finance, accounting and human resources.
5
Table of Contents
Risk of Loss and Insurance
The operation of ships, including LPG carriers, has inherent risks. These risks span a wide spectrum ranging from loss of the vessel and her crew via collision, grounding, personal illness, injury or death, technical breakdowns, cargo loss or damage, cyber-attacks, and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities or piracy. Having said that, we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate to protect us against the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that we maintain appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage consistent with standard industry practice. Additionally, we maintain non-marine insurance policies we believe are customary and with limits we believe to be adequate to protect us against material loss. The policies principally provide coverage for general liability, directors and officers, workers’ compensation, and insurance against the consequences of a cyber-attack. However, not all risks can be insured against, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at acceptable rates.
The types of insurances we have purchased can be categorized as follows:
● Damage to or loss of the ships themselves;
● Non-marine coverage, e.g. directors’ and officers’ insurance.
We have procured insurances on all our vessels against marine and war risks, both of which include the risks of damage to our vessels, salvage or towing costs, and actual or constructive total loss. The insured value of the ships is fixed and will adequately compensate for repair to a damaged ship or replacement of a lost ship. However, our insurance policies contain deductible amounts for which we are responsible.
To supplement these insurances, we have also obtained loss of hire insurance to protect against loss of income in the event one of our vessels cannot be employed due to damage covered under the terms of our hull and machinery policies (marine and war risks). Under our loss of hire policies, our insurers will pay us an agreed daily amount for the time that the vessel is out of service as a result of damage, for a maximum of 180 days following a deductible period of 14 days for marine and 7 days for war risks.
These covers are all placed with reputable insurance providers with high credit ratings.
We have procured protection and indemnity insurance (“P&I”), which covers legal liabilities to crew and third parties in connection with operating our ships, and is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I clubs. This insurance includes third-party liability and other expenses related to the illness, injury or death of crew members, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels or from contact with jetties or wharves and other damage to other third-party property, including pollution arising from oil or other substances, and other related costs, including wreck removal. Except for pollution liability, the P&I cover is unlimited.
Our current P&I coverage for pollution liability is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. The thirteen P&I clubs that comprise the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs, or 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. We are a member of three P&I clubs: The United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association Limited, Assuranceforeningen Gard and The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited. All three P&I clubs are members of the International Group of P&I Clubs. As a member of these P&I clubs, we are – in addition to the annual premiums (called “advanced calls”) - subject to potential additional premiums (called “supplemental calls”), based on each club’s over-all claims record, as well as – due to the mutual reinsurance arrangement between the clubs - the
6
Table of Contents
claims record of the other members of the P&I clubs comprising the International Group. However, the International Group of P&I Clubs has reinsured part of the risk of additional premium calls to limit additional exposure.
While we believe that our present insurance coverage is in line with industry standard and adequate, not all risks can be insured against, and there is the possibility that any specific claim may not be paid, or that we will not always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.
Our Environmental, Social and Governance Efforts
As one of the leaders in the international transportation of LPG, we are committed to delivering cleaner-burning energy in a safe, reliable and environmentally efficient manner. LPG is a clean, efficient and readily available source of energy, with positive benefits to the environment relative to other fossil fuels. While extending the economic and social benefits of delivering LPG to consumers across the globe, we recognize that the shipping industry is heavily dependent on the burning of fossil fuels which contribute to the warming of the world’s climate system. In providing our services, we are committed to reducing our carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. We welcome and support efforts to increase transparency and to promote investors’ understanding of how the shipping industry is addressing climate change-related risks and opportunities. We have disclosed certain sustainability-related information on our website, including our Corporate Responsibility (ESG) Report, aligned with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Marine Transportation standard, and have also included recommendations provided by the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The report includes information on how we monitor, manage and perform on material environmental issues in the face of increasing expectations and regulations and may be found on our website at www.dorianlpg.com. The information included on or accessible through our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”).
Dorian’s sustainability and corporate responsibility strategies, risks and initiatives are overseen by our board of directors (the “Board of Directors”), which includes independent members and experts in shipping matters. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee monitors the progress of efforts and together with management ensures integrity of reporting. The Company’s executive leadership team, led by our Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mr. John C. Hadjipateras, formulates environmental, corporate, and governance strategies and drives initiatives, while the members of our management set targets, assess risks, develops policies and procedures and executes the efforts. Some of the initiatives that we have undertaken include:
7
Table of Contents
Establishing compliance programs to meet or exceed, when possible and appropriate, all applicable rules and regulations governing the maritime industry. We were one of the founding members of The All Aboard Alliance (“AAA”), an initiative of the Global Maritime Forum, which brings together senior leaders from across the maritime industry, united by a collaborative drive towards increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in all organizations, at sea and onshore. In October 2023, the AAA announced the Diversity@Sea initiative that saw eleven companies pilot a series of test measures to make life at sea more inclusive and attractive to all seafarers. We participated in track two of the initiative that required us to meet, including having a minimum number of women onboard, continuously available wi-fi for crew members, and ensuring that all seaborne staff have access to inclusive personal protective equipment.
Environmental and Other Regulation in the Shipping Industry
General
Government regulations and laws significantly affect the ownership and operation of our fleet. We are subject to international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered relating to safety and health and environmental protection including the storage, handling, emission, transportation and discharge of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and the remediation of contamination and liability for damage to natural resources. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.
A variety of government and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (applicable national authorities such as the USCG, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administrations (countries of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and other authorizations for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or result in the temporary suspension of the operation of one or more of our vessels.
Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with United States and international
8
Table of Contents
regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations. However, because such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.
International Maritime Organization
The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by vessels (the “IMO”), has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, collectively referred to as MARPOL 73/78 and herein as “MARPOL,” the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 (“SOLAS Convention”), and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966 (the “LL Convention”). MARPOL establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged forms. MARPOL is applicable to LPG carriers as well as other vessels, and is broken into six Annexes, each of which regulates a different source of pollution. Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried in bulk in liquid or in packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, lastly, relates to air emissions. Annex VI was separately adopted by the IMO in September of 1997; new emissions standards, titled IMO-2020, took effect on January 1, 2020.
Vessels that transport gas, including LPG carriers, are also subject to regulation under the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, or the “IGC Code,” published by the IMO. The IGC Code provides a standard for the safe carriage of LPG and certain other liquid gases by prescribing the design and construction standards of vessels involved in such carriage. The completely revised and updated IGC Code entered into force in 2016, and the amendments were developed following a comprehensive five-year review and are intended to take into account the latest advances in science and technology. Compliance with the IGC Code must be evidenced by a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk. Non-compliance with the IGC Code or other applicable IMO regulations may subject a shipowner or a 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. We believe that each of our vessels is in compliance with the IGC Code.
Our LPG vessels may also become subject to the 2010 HNS Convention, if it is entered into force. In 1996, the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damages in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, was adopted and subsequently amended by the 2010 Protocol, or the 2010 HNS Convention. The HNS Convention creates a regime of liability and compensation for damage from hazardous and noxious substances (“HNS”), including liquefied gases. The 2010 HNS Convention establishes that the polluter pays by ensuring that the shipping and HNS industries provide compensation for those who have suffered loss or damage resulting from an HNS incident. The following types of damage will be covered by the 2010 HNS Convention: loss of life or personal injury on board or outside the ship carrying the HNS; loss of or damage to property outside the ship; economic losses resulting from contamination, e.g. in the fishing, mariculture and tourism sectors; costs of preventive measures, e.g. clean-up operations at sea and onshore; and costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of the environment. Shipowners will be held strictly liable up to a maximum limit of liability for the cost of an HNS incident and are required to have insurance that is State certified. The 2010 HNS Convention sets up a two-tier system of compensation composed of compulsory insurance taken out by shipowners and an HNS Fund which comes into play when the insurance is insufficient to satisfy a claim or does not cover the incident. Under the 2010 HNS Convention, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, claims for compensation will first be sought from the shipowner up to a maximum of 100 million Special Drawing Rights (“SDR”). If the damage is caused by packaged HNS or by both bulk and packaged HNS, the maximum liability is 115 million SDR. Once the limit is reached, compensation will be paid from the HNS Fund up to a maximum of 250 million SDR. The 2010 HNS Convention will enter into force 18 months after the date on which it is ratified by at least twelve States, four of which must each have a merchant shipping fleet of no less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, and having received during the preceding calendar year a total quantity of at least 40 million tons of cargo that would be contributing to the general
9
Table of Contents
account. To date, eight states (South Africa, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Norway, Turkey, France and Slovakia) have ratified and consented to be bound by the 2010 HNS Convention. Although the 2010 HNS Convention has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to enter into force, we cannot estimate the costs that may be needed to comply with any such requirements that may be adopted with any certainty at this time.
In June 2015 the IMO formally adopted the International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or Low flashpoint Fuels, or the “IGF Code,” which is designed to minimize the risks involved with ships using low flashpoint fuels. The IGF Code will be mandatory under SOLAS through the adopted amendments. The IGF Code and the amendments to SOLAS became effective January 1, 2017. In June 2022, the IGF Code was amended to address cofferdams for fire protection, safe fuel distribution outside machinery spaces, fire protection between spaces with fuel with fuel containment systems, and fixed fire-extinguishing systems in LNG fuel preparation spaces. These amendments entered into force on January 1, 2024.
Air Emissions
In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits “deliberate emissions” of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks and the 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, as explained below. Emissions of “volatile organic compounds” from certain vessels, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or “PCBs”) are also prohibited. We believe that all our vessels are currently compliant in all material respects with these regulations.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee, or “MEPC,” adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding emissions of sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter and ozone depleting substances, which entered into force on July 1, 2010. The amended Annex VI seeks to further reduce air pollution by, among other things, implementing a progressive reduction of the amount of sulfur contained in any fuel oil used on board ships. On October 27, 2016, MEPC 70 agreed to implement a global 0.5% m/m sulfur oxide emissions limit (reduced from 3.50%) starting from January 1, 2020 (the “IMO 2020 Cap”). This limitation can be met by using low-sulfur compliant fuel oil, alternative fuels or certain scrubbers. Ships are now required to obtain bunker delivery notes and International Air Pollution Prevention (“IAPP”) Certificates from their flag states that specify sulfur content. Additionally, at MEPC 73, amendments to Annex VI to prohibit the carriage of bunkers above 0.5% sulfur on ships were adopted and took effect March 1, 2020, with the exception of vessels fitted with scrubbers which can carry fuel of higher sulfur content. These regulations subject ocean-going vessels to stringent emissions controls and may cause us to incur substantial costs.
Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain “Emission Control Areas,” or (“ECAs”). As of January 1, 2015, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 0.1% m/m. Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs. Currently, the IMO has designated five ECAs, including specified portions of the Baltic Sea area, Mediterranean Sea area, North Sea area, North American area and United States Caribbean area. The Mediterranean Sea became an ECA on May 1, 2024, and compliance obligations began May 1, 2025. Ocean-going vessels in these areas will be subject to stringent emission controls and may cause us to incur additional costs. Other areas in China are subject to local regulations that impose stricter emission controls. In July 2023, MEPC 80 announced three new ECA proposals, including the Canadian Arctic waters and the North-East Atlantic Ocean, which were adopted in draft amendments to Annex IV that will enter into force in March 2026. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO, or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.
The amended Annex VI also established new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. Tier III NOx standards were designed for the control of NOx produced by vessels and apply to ships that operate in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs with marine diesel engines installed and constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Tier III requirements could apply to additional areas
10
Table of Contents
designated for Tier III NOx in the future. At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, the MEPC approved the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for nitrogen oxide for ships built on or after January 1, 2021. The EPA promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in 2010. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.
At MEPC 70, Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI became effective as of March 1, 2018 and requires ships above 5,000 gross tonnage to collect and report annual data on fuel oil consumption to an IMO database, with the first year of data collection having commenced on January 1, 2019. The IMO used such data as part of its initial roadmap (through 2023) for developing its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, as discussed further below.
As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. All ships are now required to develop and implement Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (“SEEMP”), and new ships must be designed in compliance with minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile as defined by the Energy Efficiency Design Index (“EEDI”). Under these measures, by 2025, all new ships built will be 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. MEPC 75 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI which brings forward the effective date of the EEDI’s “phase 3” requirements from January 1, 2025 to April 1, 2022 for several ship types, including gas carriers, general cargo ships, and LNG carriers.
In 2021, MEPC amended MARPOL Annex I to prohibit the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) by ships in Arctic waters on and after July 1, 2024. That same year, MEPC also adopted a non-binding resolution which urges Member States and ship operators to voluntarily use distillate or other cleaner alternative fuels or methods of propulsion that are safe for ships and could contribute to the reduction of Black Carbon emissions from ships when operating in or near the Arctic.
Additionally, in 2022, MEPC amended Annex VI to impose new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. These amendments introduce requirements to assess and measure the energy efficiency of all ships and set the required attainment values, with the goal of reducing the carbon intensity of international shipping. The requirements include (1) a technical requirement to reduce carbon intensity based on a new Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (“EEXI”), and (2) operational carbon intensity reduction requirements, based on a new operational carbon intensity indicator (“CII”). The attained EEXI is required to be calculated for ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, in accordance with different values set for ship types and categories. With respect to the CII, the draft amendments would require ships of 5,000 gross tonnage to document and verify their actual annual operational CII achieved against a determined required annual operational CII. All ships above 400 gross tonnage must also have an approved SEEMP on board. For ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, the SEEMP needs to include certain mandatory content.
In late 2022, MEPC 79 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, Appendix IX to include the attained and required CII values, the CII rating and attained EEXI for existing ships in the required information to be submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database. MEPC 79 also revised the EEDI calculation guidelines to include a CO2 conversion factor for ethane, a reference to the updated ITCC guidelines, and a clarification that in case of a ship with multiple load line certificates, the maximum certified summer draft should be used when determining the deadweight. These amendments entered into force on May 1, 2024. In July 2023, MEPC 80 approved the plan for reviewing CII regulations and guidelines, which must be completed at the latest by January 1, 2026. This review commenced at MEPC 82 in Fall 2024, and there will be no immediate changes to the CII framework, including correction factors and voyage adjustments, before the review is completed.
We may incur significant costs to comply with these revised standards, including the need to modify our vessels or engines to consume alternative fuels. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems or engine power limitation (EPL) systems to reduce fuel use and carbon emissions, each of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
11
Table of Contents
Safety Management System Requirements
The SOLAS Convention was amended to address the safe manning of vessels and emergency training drills. The Convention of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “LLMC”) sets limitations of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim or a property claim against ship owners. We believe that our vessels are in substantial compliance with SOLAS and LLMC standards.
Under Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention, or the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (the “ISM Code”), our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements. The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and for responding to emergencies. We rely upon the safety management system that we and our technical management team have developed for compliance with the ISM Code. The failure of a vessel owner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject such party to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.
The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel’s management with the ISM Code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a safety management certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. We have obtained applicable documents of compliance for our offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the IMO. The documents of compliance and safety management certificates are renewed as required.
Amendments to the SOLAS Convention Chapter VII apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (“IMDG Code”). Effective January 1, 2018, the IMDG Code includes (1) provisions for radioactive material, reflecting the latest provisions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, (2) marking, packing and classification requirements for dangerous goods and (3) mandatory training requirements. Amendments which took effect on January 1, 2020 also reflect the latest material from the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, including (1) provisions regarding IMO type 9 tank, (2) abbreviations for segregation groups, and (3) special provisions for carriage of lithium batteries and of vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas. Additional amendments, which came into force on June 1, 2022, include (1) addition of a definition of dosage rate, (2) additions to the list of high consequence dangerous goods, (3) provisions for medical/clinical waste, (4) addition of various ISO standards for gas cylinders, (5) a new handling code, and (6) changes to stowage and segregation provisions.
The IMO has also adopted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (“STCW”). As of February 2017, all seafarers are required to meet the STCW standards and be in possession of a valid STCW certificate. Flag states that have ratified SOLAS and STCW generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS and STCW requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.
Furthermore, recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and United States agencies indicates that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats By IMO resolution, administrations are encouraged to ensure that cyber-risk management systems are incorporated by ship-owners and managers by their first annual Document of Compliance audit after January 1, 2021. In February 2021, the U.S. Coast Guard published guidance on addressing cyber risks in a vessel’s safety management system. This might cause companies to create additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures. The impact of future regulations is hard to predict at this time. In addition, the 2024 ABS Marine Vessel Rules, which incorporate the IACS Unified Requirements (“UR”) E26 and E27, went into force on July 1, 2024, and were developed to establish a uniform set of minimum “cyber resilient” functional and performance criteria. These regulations required vessels to be constructed that are contracted after July 1, 2024 to comply with certain cyber security requirements and be assigned the a “Cyber Resilience” notation.
12
Table of Contents
In June 2022, SOLAS also set out new amendments that took effect January 1, 2024, which include new requirements for: (1) the design for safe mooring operations, (2) the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (“GMDSS”), (3) watertight integrity, (4) watertight doors on cargo ships, (5) fault-isolation of fire detection systems, (6) life-saving appliances, and (7) safety of ships using LNG as fuel. These new requirements may impact the cost of our operations.
Pollution Control and Liability Requirements
The IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatories to such conventions. For example, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”) in 2004. The BWM Convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of new or invasive aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits, and require all ships to carry a ballast water record book and an international ballast water management certificate.
On December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of the BWM Convention so that the dates are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This, in effect, makes all vessels delivered before the entry into force date “existing vessels” and allows for the installation of ballast water management systems on such vessels at the first International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey following entry into force of the convention.
The MEPC maintains guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8). At MEPC 72, amendments were adopted to extend the date existing vessels are subject to certain ballast water standards. Ships over 400 gross tons generally must comply with a “D-1 standard,” requiring the exchange of ballast water only in open seas and away from coastal waters. The “D-2 standard” specifies the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged, and compliance dates vary depending on the IOPP renewal dates. The standards have been in force since 2019, and for most ships, compliance with the D-2 standard involved installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Ballast water management systems, which include systems that make use of chemical, biocides, organisms or biological mechanisms, or which alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the ballast water, must be approved in accordance with IMO Guidelines (Regulation D-3). Since September 8, 2024, all ships must meet the D-2 standard. Costs of compliance with these regulations may be substantial. Additionally, in November 2020, MEPC 75 adopted amendments to the BWM Convention which would require a commissioning test of the ballast water management system for the initial survey or when performing an additional survey for retrofits. This analysis will not apply to ships that already have an installed BWM system certified under the BWM Convention. These amendments have entered into force on June 1, 2022. In December 2022, MEPC 79 agreed that it should be permitted to use ballast tanks for temporary storage of treated sewage and grey water. MEPC 79 also established that ships are expected to return to D-2 compliance after experiencing challenging uptake water and bypassing a BWM system should only be used as a last resort.
In July 2023, MEPC 80 approved a plan for a comprehensive review of the BWM Convention over the next three years and the corresponding development of a package of amendments to the Convention. MEPC 80 also adopted further amendments relating to Appendix II of the BWM Convention concerning the form of the Ballast Water Record Book, which entered into force in February 2025. A protocol for ballast water compliance monitoring devices and unified interpretation of the form of the BWM Convention certificate were also adopted. In March 2024, MEPC 81 adopted amendments to the BWM Convention concerning the use of Ballast Water Record Books in electronic form, which are expected to enter into force in October 2025. Pursuant to the ongoing review, in Fall 2024, MEPC 82 approved the 2024 Guidance on ballast water record keeping and reporting and the 2024 Guidance for Administrations on the type approval process for ballast water management systems to support harmonized evaluation by Administrations.
Once mid-ocean exchange ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory under the BWM Convention, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and may have a material effect on our operations. However, many countries already regulate the discharge of ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the
13
Table of Contents
introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The U.S., for example, requires vessels entering its waters from another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternate measure, and to comply with certain reporting requirements.
The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by different Protocols in 1976, 1984 and 1992, and amended in 2000 (“the CLC”). Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner may be strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit, the Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so that the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless act or omission where the shipowner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC requires ships over 2,000 tons covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner’s liability for a single incident. We have P&I for environmental incidents. P&I Clubs in the International Group issue the required Bunkers Convention “Blue Cards” to enable signatory states to issue certificates. All of our vessels are in possession of a CLC State issued certificate attesting that the required insurance coverage is in force.
The Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973 (the “Intervention Protocol”) applies if there is a casualty involving a ship carrying LNG or LPG. The Intervention Protocol grants coastal states the right to intervene to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the danger of ‘substances other than oil’, including LNG and LPG, after consulting with other states affected and independent IMO-approved experts. The cost of such measures can usually be recovered by the governmental authority against the shipowner under national law.
Ships are required to maintain a certificate attesting that they maintain adequate insurance to cover an incident. In jurisdictions, such as the United States where the Bunker Convention has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or on a strict-liability basis.
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, which entered into force on September 17, 2008, prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages will also be required to undergo an initial survey before the vessel is put into service or before an International Anti-fouling System Certificate, or the “IAFS Certificate,” is issued for the first time; and subsequent surveys when the anti-fouling systems are altered or replaced. Vessels of 24 meters in length or more but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the owner or authorized agent.
In November 2020, MEPC 75 approved draft amendments to the Anti-fouling Convention to prohibit anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne, which would apply to ships from January 1, 2023, or, for ships already bearing such an anti-fouling system, at the next scheduled renewal of the system after that date, but no later than 60 months following the last application to the ship of such a system. In addition, the IAFS Certificate has been updated to address compliance options for anti-fouling systems to address cybutryne. Ships which are affected by this ban on cybutryne must receive an updated IAFS Certificate no later than two years after the entry into force of these amendments. Ships which are not affected (i.e. with anti-fouling systems which do not contain cybutryne) must receive an updated IAFS Certificate at the next Anti-fouling application to the vessel. These amendments were formally adopted at MEPC 76 in June 2021 and entered into force on January 1, 2023.
We have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our VLGCs that are subject to the Anti-fouling Convention.
14
Table of Contents
Compliance Enforcement
Noncompliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the ship owner 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 USCG and European Union authorities prohibit vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by applicable deadlines will from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively. As of the date of this Annual Report, each of our vessels is ISM Code certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certificates will be maintained in the future. 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.
Hazardous Substances
Our LPG vessels may also become subject to the HNS Convention if it is entered into force. The Convention creates a regime of liability and compensation for damage from hazardous and noxious substances, including liquefied gases. The 2010 HNS Convention sets up a two-tier system of compensation composed of compulsory insurance taken out by shipowners and an HNS Fund which comes into play when the insurance is insufficient to satisfy a claim or does not cover the incident. Under the 2010 HNS Convention, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, claims for compensation will first be sought from the shipowner up to a maximum of 100 million SDR. If the damage is caused by packaged HNS or by both bulk and packaged HNS, the maximum liability is 115 million SDR. Once the limit is reached, compensation will be paid from the HNS Fund up to a maximum of 250 million SDR. The 2010 HNS Convention has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to enter into force, and we cannot estimate the costs that may be needed to comply with any such requirements that may be adopted with any certainty at this time.
In 2012, MEPC adopted a resolution amending the International Code for the Construction of Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, or the IBC Code. The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and the SOLAS Convention. These amendments, which entered into force in June 2014 and took effect on January 1, 2021, pertain to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk and identifying new products that fall under the IBC Code. In May 2014, additional amendments to the IBC Code were adopted that became effective in January 2016. These amendments pertain to the installation of stability instruments and cargo tank purging. Our ECO VLGCs and Dual-fuel ECO VLGC are equipped with stability instruments and cargo tank purging. We may need to make certain minor financial expenditures to comply with these amendments for our modern 82,000 cbm VLGC.
United States Regulations
The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all “owners and operators” whose vessels trade or operate within the U.S., its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S.’s territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the U.S. The U.S. has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, except in limited circumstances, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define “owner and operator” in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.
Under OPA, vessel owners and operators are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels, including bunkers (fuel). OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:
15
Table of Contents
OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs. On December 23, 2022, the USCG issued a final rule to adjust the limitation of liability under the OPA. Effective March 23, 2023, the new adjusted limits of OPA liability for a tank vessel, other than a single-hull tank vessel, over 3,000 gross tons liability to the greater of $2,500 per gross ton or $21,521,300) (previous limit was $2,300 gross ton or $19,943,400). These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship) or a responsible party's gross negligence or willful misconduct. The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident as required by law where the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.
CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damages for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing the same, and health assessments or health effects studies. There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5.0 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel. These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations. The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refuses to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.
OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We comply and plan to comply going forward with the USCG’s financial responsibility regulations by providing applicable certificates of financial responsibility.
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including higher liability caps under OPA, new regulations regarding offshore oil and gas drilling and a pilot inspection program for offshore facilities. However, several of these initiatives and regulations have been or may be revised as a result of political changes. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (“BSEE”) revised Production Safety Systems Rule (“PSSR”), effective December 27, 2018, modified and relaxed certain environmental and safety protections under the 2016 PSSR. However, in August 2023, under a new administration, the BSEE released a final Well Control Rule, which strengthens testing and performance requirements, and may affect offshore drilling operations.
16
Table of Contents
In January 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order temporarily blocking new leases for oil and gas drilling in federal waters, but ultimately, the order was rendered ineffective by a permanent injunction issued by a Louisiana court. After being blocked by the courts, in September 2023, the Biden administration announced a scaled back offshore oil drilling plan, including just three oil lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. On January 6, 2025, the Biden administration announced a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling in more than 625 million acres of U.S. waters on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in Alaska, but Louisiana-led states and fossil fuel groups are challenging the ban. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order revoking this ban but will also likely face legal challenges over this revocation. The Trump administration has also proposed leasing new sections of U.S. waters to oil and gas companies for offshore drilling. With these rapid changes, compliance with any new requirements of OPA and future legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels could impact the cost of our operations and adversely affect our business.
OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills, and many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. Moreover, some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, although in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.
We currently maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
Other United States Environmental Initiatives
The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 (including its amendments of 1977 and 1990) (“CAA”) requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas. The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or “SIPs”, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in each state. Although state-specific, SIPs may include regulations concerning emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. Our vessels operating in such regulated port areas with restricted cargoes are equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these existing requirements.
The U.S. Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In 2015, the EPA expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”), thereby expanding federal authority under the CWA. Following litigation on the revised WOTUS rule, in December 2018, the EPA and Department of the Army proposed a revised, limited definition of WOTUS. In 2019 and 2020, the agencies repealed the prior WOTUS rule and promulgated the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (“NWPR”), which significantly reduced the scope and oversight of EPA and the Department of the Army in traditionally non-navigable waterways. On August 30, 2021, a federal district court in Arizona vacated the NWPR and directed the agencies to replace the rule with the pre-2015 definition. In January 2023, the revised WOTUS rule was codified in place of the vacated NWPR. On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Sackett v. EPA that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the CWA, further narrowing the application of the WOTUS rule. On August 2023, the EPA and Department of the Army issued the final WOTUS rule, effective on September 8, 2023, that largely reinstated the pre-2015 definition and applied the Sackett ruling.
17
Table of Contents
The EPA and the USCG have also enacted rules relating to ballast water discharge, compliance with which requires the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial costs, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. Waters. The EPA will regulate these ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2018 and replaced the 2013 Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) program (which authorizes discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in U.S. waters, stringent requirements for scrubbers, and requirements for the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants) and current Coast Guard ballast water management regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”), such as mid-ocean ballast exchange programs and installation of approved USCG technology for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks bound for U.S. ports or entering U.S. waters. VIDA establishes a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under Clean Water Act (CWA), requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment, and requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop implementation, compliance and enforcement regulations within two years of EPA’s promulgation of standards. On September 24, 2024, the EPA finalized its rule on Vessel Incidental Discharge Standards of Performance, which means that the USCG must now develop corresponding regulations regarding ballast water within two years of that date. Under VIDA, all provisions of the 2013 VGP and USCG regulations regarding ballast water treatment remain in force and effect until the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard regulations are finalized. Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length must continue to comply with the requirements of the VGP, including submission of a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) or retention of a PARI form and submission of annual reports. We have submitted NOIs for our vessels where required. Compliance with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard and state regulations could require the installation of ballast water treatment equipment on our vessels or the implementation of other port facility disposal procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.
European Union Regulations
In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. The directive applies to all types of vessels, irrespective of their flag, but certain exceptions apply to warships or where human safety or that of the ship is in danger. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 (amending EU Directive 2009/16/EC) governs the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and, subject to some exclusions, requires companies with ships over 5,000 gross tonnage to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions annually, which may cause us to incur additional expenses.
The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives requiring, among other things, more frequent inspections of high-risk ships, as determined by type, age, and flag as well as the number of times the ship has been detained. The European Union also adopted and extended a ban on substandard ships and enacted a minimum ban period and a definitive ban for repeated offenses. The regulation also provided the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, by imposing more requirements on classification societies and providing for fines or penalty payments for organizations that failed to comply. Furthermore, the EU has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/33/EC (amending Directive 1999/32/EC) introduced requirements parallel to those in Annex VI relating to the sulfur content of marine fuels. In addition, the EU imposed a 0.1% maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel (the so called “SOx-Emission Control Area”). As of January 2020, EU member states must also ensure that ships in all EU waters, except the SOx-Emission Control Area, use fuels with a 0.5% maximum sulfur content.
On September 15, 2020, the European Parliament voted to include greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector in the European Union’s carbon market, the EU Emissions Trading System (“EU ETS”)as part of its “Fit-for-55” legislation to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. This will require shipowners to buy permits to cover these emissions. On December 18, 2022, the Environmental Council and European Parliament agreed on a gradual
18
Table of Contents
introduction of obligations for shipping companies to surrender allowances equivalent to a portion of their carbon emissions: 40% for verified emissions from 2024, 70% for 2025 and 100% for 2026. Most large vessels will be included in the scope of the EU ETS from the start. Big offshore vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will be included in the 'MRV' on the monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport regulation from 2025 and in the EU ETS from 2027. General cargo vessels and off-shore vessels between 400-5,000 gross tonnage will be included in the MRV regulation from 2025 and their inclusion in EU ETS will be reviewed in 2026. Furthermore, starting from January 1, 2026, the ETS regulations will expand to include emissions of two additional greenhouse gases: nitrous oxide and methane.
The EU also adopted the FuelEU Maritime regulation, a proposal included in the "Fit-for-55" legislation. From January 2025, FuelEU Maritime sets requirements on the annual average GHG intensity of energy used by ships trading within the EU or European Economic Area (EEA). This intensity is measured as GHG emissions per energy unit (gCO2e/MJ) and, in turn, GHG emissions are calculated in a well-to-wake perspective. The calculation takes into account emissions related to the extraction, cultivation, production and transportation of fuel, in addition to emissions from energy used on board the ship. The baseline for the calculation is the average well-to-wake GHG intensity of the fleet in 2020: 91.16 gCO2e/MJ. This started at a 2% reduction in 2025, increasing to 6% in 2030, and accelerating from 2035 to reach an 80% reduction by 2050.
Compliance with the Maritime EU ETS or the FuelEU Maritime regulation will result in additional compliance and administration costs to properly incorporate the provisions of the Directive into our business routines. Additional EU regulations which are part of the EU’s "Fit-for-55," could also affect our financial position in terms of compliance and administration costs when they take effect.
International Labour Organization
The International Labour Organization (the “ILO”) is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (“MLC 2006”). A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships that are 500 gross tonnage or over and are either engaged in international voyages or flying the flag of a member and operating from a port, or between ports, in another country. We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The U.S. initially entered into the agreement, but on June 1, 2017, the Trump administration announced that the United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and the withdrawal became effective on November 4, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which the U.S. officially rejoined on February 19, 2021. On April 22, 2021, former President Biden also announced a new target for the U.S. to achieve a 50-52% reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse pollution by 2030. In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to begin the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement
At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the ambitions. At MEPC 77,
19
Table of Contents
the Member States agreed to initiate the revision of the Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships, recognizing the need to strengthen the “levels of ambition.” during the revision process. In July 2023, MEPC 80 adopted the 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, which builds upon the initial strategy’s levels of ambition. The revised levels of ambition include (1) further decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through improvement of energy efficiency; (2) reducing carbon intensity of international shipping; (3) increasing adoption of zero or near-zero emissions technologies, fuels, and energy sources; and (4) achieving net zero GHG from international shipping. Furthermore, the following indicative checkpoints were adopted in order to reach net zero GHG emissions from international shipping: i). reduce the total annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 20%, striving for 30%, by 2030, compared to 2008 levels; and ii). reduce the total annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 70%, striving for 80%, by 2040, compared to 2008 levels. These regulations could cause us to incur additional substantial expenses. In March 2024, MEPC 81 further developed the goal-based marine fuel standard regulating the phased reduction of marine fuel’s GHG intensity as part of its mid-term measures. In Fall 2024, MEPC 82 made further progress on the development of these mid-term measures, and the Committee is expected to approve amendments at MEPC 83 (Spring 2025) for adoption in October 2025.
The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. Starting in January 2018, large ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information. Under the European Climate Law, the EU committed to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 through its “Fit-for-55” legislation package. As part of this initiative, the European Union’s carbon market, EU ETS, has been extended to cover CO2 emissions from all large ships entering EU ports starting January 2024.
In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, the Trump administration issued an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and on August 13, 2020, the EPA released rules rolling back standards to control methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new oil and gas facilities. In early 2021, the Biden administration directed the EPA to publish a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding certain of these rules. The resulting final rule was issued in December 2023. Such rules may be subject to revision or revocation following the change in federal administration beginning in 2025. The EPA or individual states could enact these or other environmental regulations that could affect our operations.
Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the EU, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. As of March 31, 2025, sixteen of our ECO-VLGCs, including one of our chartered-in ECO-VLGCs, are equipped with scrubbers and we have contractual commitments related to a scrubber on an additional VLGC as of March 31, 2024. In addition to the added costs, the concern over climate change and regulatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may reduce global demand for oil and oil products, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial results and cash flows.
Even in the absence of climate control legislation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or certain weather events. In addition, there may be significant physical effects of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions that have the potential to negatively impact our customers, personnel, and physical assets any of which could adversely impact the demand for our services or our ability to recruit personnel.
Vessel Security Regulations
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security such as the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (“MTSA”). To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security
20
Table of Contents
requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.
Similarly, Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention imposes detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities and mandates compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (“the ISPS Code”). The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate (“ISSC”) from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state. Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained, expelled from, or refused entry at port until they obtain an ISSC. The various requirements, some of which are found in the SOLAS Convention, include, for example, on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship’s identity, position, course, speed and navigational status; on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the authorities on shore; the development of vessel security plans; ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel’s hull; a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history including the name of the ship, the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and compliance with flag state security certification requirements
The USCG regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid ISSC that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Future security measures could have a significant financial impact on us. We intend to comply with the various security measures addressed by MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.
The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in the frequency of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area. In addition, certain state actors in the Arabian Gulf have recently seized ships for alleged violations of law, though the veracity of such claims has been doubted. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of detention of a vessel or additional security measures, and the risk of uninsured losses could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP5 industry standard.
We seek to manage exposure to losses from the above-described environmental and vessel security laws through our development of appropriate risk management programs, including compliance programs, safety management systems and insurance programs, as applicable.
Taxation
The following is a discussion of the material Marshall Islands and United States federal income tax considerations relevant to a United States Holder and a Non-United States Holder, each as defined below, with respect to the common shares. This discussion does not purport to deal with the tax consequences of owning our common shares to all categories of investors, some of which, such as financial institutions, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, tax exempt organizations, insurance companies, persons holding our common stock as part of a hedging, integrated, conversion or constructive sale transaction or a straddle, traders in securities that have elected the mark to market method of accounting for their securities, persons liable for alternative minimum tax, persons subject to the “base erosion and anti-avoidance” tax, persons who are investors in partnerships or other pass through entities for United States federal income tax purposes or hold our common shares through an applicable partnership interest, dealers in securities or currencies, United States Holders whose functional currency is not the United States dollar, investor that are required to recognize income for U.S. federal income tax purposes no later than when such income is included on an “applicable financial statement” and investors that own, actually or under applicable constructive ownership rules, 10% or more of our shares of common stock, may be subject to special rules. This discussion deals only with holders who purchase and hold the common shares as a capital asset. You are encouraged to consult your own tax advisors concerning the overall tax consequences arising in your own particular situation under United States federal, state, local or non-United States law of the ownership of common shares.
21
Table of Contents
Marshall Islands Tax Considerations
In the opinion of Seward & Kissel LLP, the following are the material Marshall Islands tax consequences of our activities to us and of our common shares to our shareholders. We are incorporated in the Marshall Islands. Under current Marshall Islands law, we are not subject to tax on income or capital gains, and no Marshall Islands withholding tax will be imposed upon payments of dividends by us to our shareholders.
United States Federal Income Tax Considerations
In the opinion of Seward & Kissel LLP, the following are the material United States federal income tax consequences to us of our activities and to United States Holders and Non-United States Holders, each as defined below, of the common shares. The following discussion of United States federal income tax matters is based on the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect as of the date hereof, or the Code, judicial decisions, administrative pronouncements, and existing and proposed regulations issued by the United States Department of the Treasury, or the Treasury Regulations, all of which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect. The discussion below is based, in part, on the description of our business as described in this Annual Report and assumes that we conduct our business as described herein.
United States Federal Income Taxation of Operating Income: In General
Unless we qualify for an exemption from United States federal income taxation under the rules of Section 883 of the Code, or Section 883, as discussed below, a foreign corporation such as the Company will be subject to United States federal income taxation on its “shipping income” that is treated as derived from sources within the United States, to which we refer as “United States source shipping income.” For United States federal income tax purposes, "United States source shipping income" includes 50% of shipping income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States.
Shipping income attributable to transportation exclusively between non-United States ports will be considered to be 100% derived from sources entirely outside the United States. Shipping income derived from sources outside the United States will not be subject to any United States federal income tax.
Shipping income attributable to transportation exclusively between United States ports is considered to be 100% derived from United States sources. However, we are not permitted by United States law to engage in the transportation of cargoes that produces 100% United States source shipping income.
Unless we qualify for the exemption from tax under Section 883, our gross United States source shipping income would be subject to a 4% tax imposed without allowance for deductions as described below.
Exemption of Operating Income from United States Federal Income Taxation
Under Section 883 and the Treasury Regulations thereunder, a foreign corporation will be exempt from United States federal income taxation of its United States source shipping income if:
2) one of the following tests is met:
22
Table of Contents
The Republic of the Marshall Islands, the jurisdiction where we and our ship-owning subsidiaries are incorporated, has been officially recognized by the United States Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, as a qualified foreign country that grants the requisite “equivalent exemption” from tax in respect of each category of shipping income we earn and currently expect to earn in the future. Therefore, we 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 satisfy the Publicly-Traded Test, a factual determination made on an annual basis, with respect to our taxable year ended March 31, 2025, and we expect to continue to do so for our subsequent taxable years, and we intend to take this position for United States federal income tax reporting purposes. We do not currently anticipate circumstances under which we would be able to satisfy the 50% Ownership Test.
Publicly-Traded Test
The Treasury Regulations under Section 883 provide, in pertinent part, that shares of a foreign corporation will be considered to be “primarily traded” on an established securities market in a country if the number of shares of each class of stock that are traded during any taxable year on all established securities markets in that country exceeds the number of shares in each such class that are traded during that year on established securities markets in any other single country. The Company’s common shares, which constitute its sole class of issued and outstanding stock is “primarily traded” on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, an established securities market for these purposes.
Under the Treasury Regulations, our common shares will be considered to be “regularly traded” on an established securities market if one or more classes of our shares representing more than 50% of our outstanding stock, by both total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and total value, are listed on such market, to which we refer as the “listing threshold.” Since all of our common shares are listed on the NYSE, we expect to satisfy the listing threshold.
The Treasury Regulations also require that with respect to each class of stock relied upon to meet the listing threshold, (i) such class of stock traded on the market, other than in minimal quantities, on at least 60 days during the taxable year or one-sixth of the days in a short taxable year, which we refer to as the “trading frequency test”; and (ii) the aggregate number of shares of such class of stock traded on such market during the taxable year must be at least 10% of the average number of shares of such class of stock outstanding during such year or as appropriately adjusted in the case of a short taxable year, which we refer to as the “trading volume” test. We anticipate that we will satisfy the trading frequency and trading volume tests. Even if this were not the case, the Treasury Regulations provide that the trading frequency and trading volume tests will be deemed satisfied if, as is expected to be the case with our common shares, such class of stock is traded on an established securities market in the United States and such shares are regularly quoted by dealers making a market in such shares.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Treasury Regulations provide, in pertinent part, that a class of shares will not be considered to be “regularly traded” on an established securities market for any taxable year in which 50% or more of the vote and value of the outstanding shares of such class are owned on more than half the days during the taxable year by persons who each own 5% or more of the vote and value of such class of outstanding stock, to which we refer as the "5% Override Rule."
For purposes of being able to determine the persons who actually or constructively own 5% or more of the vote and value of our common shares, or “5% Shareholders,” the Treasury Regulations permit us to rely on those persons that are identified on Schedule 13G and Schedule 13D filings with the Commission, as owning 5% or more of our common shares. The Treasury Regulations further provide that an investment company which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, will not be treated as a 5% Shareholder for such purposes.
In the event the 5% Override Rule is triggered, the Treasury Regulations provide that the 5% Override Rule will nevertheless not apply if we can establish that within the group of 5% Shareholders, qualified shareholders (as defined for
23
Table of Contents
purposes of Section 883) own sufficient number of shares to preclude non-qualified shareholders in such group from owning 50% or more of our common shares for more than half the number of days during the taxable year.
We believe that we satisfy the Publicly-Traded Test and will not be subject to the 5% Override Rule for taxable year ended March 31, 2025 and we also expect to continue to do so for our subsequent taxable years. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of the Section 883 exemption. For example, we may no longer qualify for Section 883 exemption for a particular taxable year if 5% Shareholders were to own, in the aggregate, 50% or more of our outstanding common shares on more than half the days of the taxable year, unless we could establish that within the group of 5% Shareholders, qualified shareholders own sufficient number of our shares to preclude the non-qualified shareholders in such group from owning 50% or more of our common shares for more than half the number of days during the taxable year. Under the Treasury Regulations, we would have to satisfy certain substantiation requirements regarding the identity of our shareholders. These requirements are onerous and there is no assurance that we would be able to satisfy them. Given the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances in regards of our or our subsidiaries' qualification for the Section 883 exemption.
Taxation in Absence of Section 883 Exemption
If the benefits of Section 883 are unavailable, our United States source shipping income would be subject to a 4% tax imposed by Section 887 of the Code on a gross basis, without the benefit of deductions, or the “4% gross basis tax regime,” to the extent that such income is not considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a United States trade or business, as described below. Since under the sourcing rules described above, no more than 50% of our shipping income would be treated as being United States source shipping income, the maximum effective rate of United States federal income tax on our shipping income would never exceed 2% under the 4% gross basis tax regime.
To the extent our United States source shipping income is considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a United States trade or business, as described below, any such "effectively connected" United States source shipping income, net of applicable deductions, would be subject to United States federal income tax, currently imposed at a rate of 21%. In addition, we would generally be subject to the 30% "branch profits" tax 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 our United States trade or business.
Our United States source shipping income would be considered “effectively connected” with the conduct of a United States trade or business only if:
We do not intend to have, or permit circumstances that would result in having, any vessel sailing to or from the United States on a regularly scheduled basis. Based on the foregoing and on the expected mode of our shipping operations and other activities, it is anticipated that none of our United States source shipping income will be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a United States trade or business.
United States Taxation of Gain on Sale of Vessels
Regardless of whether we qualify for exemption under Section 883, we will not be subject to United States federal income tax with respect to gain realized on a sale of a vessel, provided the sale is considered to occur outside of the United States under United States federal income tax principles. In general, a sale of a vessel will be considered to occur outside of the United States for this purpose if title to the vessel, and risk of loss with respect to the vessel, pass to the buyer outside of the United States. It is expected that any sale of a vessel by us will be considered to occur outside of the United States.
24
Table of Contents
United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders
As used herein, the term “United States Holder” means a holder that for United States federal income tax purposes is a beneficial owner of common shares and is an individual United States citizen or resident, a United States corporation or other United States entity taxable as a corporation, an estate the income of which is subject to United States federal income taxation regardless of its source, or a trust if a court within the United States is able to exercise primary jurisdiction 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 upon the status of the partner and upon the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner in a partnership holding the common shares, you are encouraged to consult your tax advisor.
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 to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under United States federal income tax principles. Distributions in excess of such 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 its common shares and thereafter as capital gain. Because we are not a United States corporation, United States Holders that are corporations will generally 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 foreign source dividend income and will generally constitute “passive category income” for purposes of computing allowable foreign tax credits for United States foreign tax credit purposes.
Dividends paid on our common shares to certain non-corporate United States Holders will generally be treated as “qualified dividend income” that is taxable to such United States Holders at preferential tax rates provided that (1) the common shares are readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States (such as the NYSE, on which our common shares will be traded), (2) the shareholder has owned the common stock for more than 60 days in the 121-day period beginning 60 days before the date on which the common stock becomes ex-dividend, and (3) we are not a passive foreign investment company for the taxable year during which the dividend is paid or the immediately preceding taxable year.
There is no assurance that any dividends paid on our common shares will be eligible for these preferential rates in the hands of such non-corporate United States Holders, although, as described above, we expect such dividends to be so eligible provided an eligible non-corporate United States Holder meets all applicable requirements and we are not a passive foreign passive investment company in the taxable year during which the dividend is paid or the immediately preceding taxable year. Any dividends paid by us which are not eligible for these preferential rates will be taxed as ordinary income to a non-corporate United States Holder.
Special rules may apply to any “extraordinary dividend”—generally, a dividend in an amount which is equal to or in excess of 10% of a shareholder’s adjusted tax basis or dividends received within a one-year period that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed 20% of a shareholder's adjusted tax basis (or fair market value upon the shareholder's election) in a common share—paid by us. If we pay an “extraordinary dividend” on our common shares that is treated as “qualified dividend income,” then any loss derived by certain non-corporate United States Holders 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 passive foreign investment company for any taxable year, 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
25
Table of Contents
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. Long-term capital gains of certain non-corporate United States Holders are currently eligible for reduced rates of taxation. A United States Holder’s ability to deduct capital losses is subject to certain limitations.
Passive Foreign Investment Company Status and Significant Tax Consequences
Special United States federal income tax rules apply to a United States Holder that holds shares in a foreign corporation classified as a “passive foreign investment company,” or 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 holds our common shares, either:
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 ship-owning subsidiaries in which we own at least 25% of the value of the subsidiary's stock. 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.
We believe that income we earn from the voyage charters, and also from time charters, for the reasons discussed below, will be treated as active income for PFIC purposes and as a result, we intend to take the position that we satisfy the 75% income test for our taxable year ended March 31, 2025.
Based on our current and anticipated operations, we do not believe that we will be treated as a PFIC for our taxable year ended March 31, 2025 or subsequent taxable years, and we intend to take such position for our United States federal income tax reporting purposes. Our belief is based principally on the position that the gross income we derive from our voyage or time chartering activities should constitute services income, rather than rental income. Accordingly, such income should not constitute passive income, and the assets that we 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. There is substantial legal authority supporting this position consisting of case law and IRS pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept this position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. In addition, although we intend to conduct our affairs in a manner to avoid being classified as a PFIC with respect to any taxable year, we cannot assure you that the nature of our operations will not change in the future.
As discussed more fully below, for any taxable year in which we are, or were to be treated as, a PFIC, a 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. A United States holder of shares in a PFIC will be required to file an annual information return containing information regarding the PFIC as required by applicable Treasury Regulations. We intend to promptly notify our shareholders if we determine we are a PFIC for any taxable year.
Taxation of United States Holders Making a Timely QEF Election
If a United States Holder makes a timely QEF election, which United States Holder we refer to as an “Electing Holder,” the Electing Holder must report for United States federal income tax purposes its pro rata share of our ordinary
26
Table of Contents
earnings and net capital gain, if any, for each of our taxable years during which we are a PFIC that ends with or within the taxable year of the Electing Holder, regardless of whether distributions were received from us by the Electing Holder. No portion of any such inclusions of ordinary earnings will be treated as “qualified dividend income.” Net capital gain inclusions of certain non-corporate United States Holders would be eligible for preferential capital gains tax rates. The Electing Holder's adjusted tax basis in the common shares will be increased to reflect any income included under the QEF election. Distributions of previously taxed income will not be subject to tax upon distribution but will decrease the Electing Holder's tax basis in the common shares. An Electing Holder would not, however, be entitled to a deduction for its pro rata share of any losses that we incur with respect to any taxable year. An Electing Holder would generally recognize capital gain or loss on the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares. A United States Holder would make a timely QEF election for our common shares by filing one copy of IRS Form 8621 with his United States federal income tax return for the first year in which he held such shares when we were a PFIC. If we take the position that we are not a PFIC for any taxable year, and it is later determined that we were a PFIC for such taxable year, it may be possible for a United States Holder to make a retroactive QEF election effective for such year. If we determine that we are a PFIC for any taxable year, we will provide each United States Holder with all necessary information required for the United States Holder to make the QEF election and to report its pro rata share of our ordinary earnings and net capital gain, if any, for each of our taxable years during which we are a PFIC that ends with or within the taxable year of the Electing Holder as described above.
Taxation of United States Holders Making a "Mark-to-Market" Election
Alternatively, for any taxable year in which we determine that we are a PFIC, and, assuming as we anticipate will be the case, our shares are treated as "marketable stock," a United States Holder would be allowed to make a “mark-to-market” election with respect to our common shares, provided the United States Holder completes and files IRS Form 8621 in accordance with the relevant instructions and related Treasury Regulations. If that election is made, the United States Holder generally would include as ordinary income in each taxable year the excess, if any, of the fair market value of the common shares at the end of the taxable year over such Holder's adjusted tax basis in the common shares. The United States Holder would also be permitted an ordinary loss in respect of the excess, if any, of the United States Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the common shares over its fair market value at the end of the taxable year, but only to the extent of the net amount previously included in income as a result of the mark-to-market election. A United States Holder's tax basis in his common shares would be adjusted to reflect any such income or loss amount recognized. In a year when we are a PFIC, any gain realized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares would be treated as ordinary income, and any loss realized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of the common shares would be treated as ordinary loss to the extent that such loss does not exceed the net mark-to-market gains previously included by the United States Holder.
Taxation of United States Holders Not Making a Timely QEF or Mark-to-Market Election
For any taxable year in which we determine that we are a PFIC, a United States Holder who does not make either a QEF election or a “mark-to-market” election for that year, whom we refer to as a “Non-Electing Holder,” would be subject to special rules with respect to (i) any excess distribution (i.e., 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, exchange or other disposition of our common shares. Under these special rules:
27
Table of Contents