UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 20-F

 

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

OR

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

OR

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

For the transition period from            to           

OR

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

Date of event requiring this shell company report           

Commission file number: 001-36028

 

ARDMORE SHIPPING CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Republic of the Marshall Islands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

 

Cumberland House, 1 Victoria Street, 5^th Floor, Hamilton, HM11, Bermuda

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

Mr. Anthony Gurnee
Cumberland House, 1 Victoria Street, 5^th Floor, Hamilton, HM11, Bermuda
+ 1 441 405-7800
info@ardmoreshipping.com

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile, and address of Company Contact Person)

 

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act.

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share		New York Stock Exchange

 

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act.

NONE

(Title of class)

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.

NONE

(Title of class)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

As of December 31, 2015, there were 26,210,311 shares of common stock outstanding, par value $0.01 per share.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.Yes o No x

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Yes o No x

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 x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files).Yes x No o

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

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer x		Non-accelerated filer o

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

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow: o Item 17 o Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).Yes o No x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor protections for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to provide prospective information about their business. We desire to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with such safe harbor legislation.

This Annual Report and any other written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements which reflect our current views and assumptions with respect to future events and financial performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, expectations, projections, strategies, beliefs about future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. In some cases, words such as “believe”, “anticipate”, “intends”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “project”, “plan”, “potential”, “will”, “may”, “should”, “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, among others, such matters as:

Many of these statements are based on our assumptions about factors that are beyond our ability to control or predict and are subject to risks and uncertainties that are described more fully under the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. Any of these factors or a combination of these factors could materially affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and the ultimate accuracy of the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause future results to differ include, among others, the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report, because they are statements about events that are not certain to occur as described or at all. All forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of our future performance, and actual results and future developments may vary materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

Except to the extent required by applicable law or regulation, we undertake no obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors

Not applicable

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

Unless the context otherwise requires, when used in this Annual Report, the terms “Ardmore,” “Ardmore Shipping,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Ardmore Shipping Corporation and its subsidiaries. “Ardmore Shipping Corporation” refers only to Ardmore Shipping Corporation and not its subsidiaries. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to “dollars,” “U.S. dollars” and “$” in this annual report are to the lawful currency of the United States. Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (or U.S. GAAP). We use the term deadweight tons, or dwt, expressed in metric tons, each of which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, in describing the size of tankers.

A. Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated financial data and other operating data. The selected financial data as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The selected consolidated financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are not included in this Annual Report. The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The data set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”

		For the years ended
INCOME STATEMENT DATA		Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013				Dec 31, 2012				Dec 31, 2011
REVENUE
Revenue			157,882,259				67,326,634				35,867,356				25,172,654				22,375,414
OPERATING EXPENSES
Commissions and voyage related costs			30,137,173				7,004,045				2,523,842				789,149				468,067
Vessel operating expenses			46,416,510				29,447,876				18,215,487				14,598,071				12,186,825
Charter hire costs			—				—				—				1,699,943				1,663,380
Depreciation			24,157,022				14,854,885				8,388,208				6,195,416				5,343,091
Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure			2,120,974				2,031,100				1,420,814				441,491				—
General and administrative expenses			10,748,622				8,178,666				5,669,935				2,975,139				2,599,031
Total operating expenses			113,580,301				61,516,572				36,218,286				26,699,209				22,260,394
Profit/(loss) from operations			44,301,958				5,810,062				(350,930	)			(1,526,555	)			115,020
Interest expense and finance costs			(12,282,704	)			(4,119,283	)			(3,464,006	)			(2,966,014	)			(3,080,472	)
Interest income			15,571				16,444				6,059				4,713				3,608
Profit/(loss) before taxes			32,034,825				1,707,223				(3,808,877	)			(4,487,856	)			(2,961,844	)
Income tax			(79,860	)			(46,749	)			(33,726	)			(51,237	)			(13,426	)
Net profit/(loss)			31,954,965				1,660,474				(3,842,603	)			(4,539,093	)			(2,975,270	)
Earnings/(loss) per share, basic and diluted			1.23				0.07				(0.31	)			(0.56	)			(0.37	)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted			26,059,122				24,547,661				12,241,599				8,049,500				8,049,500

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		As at
BALANCE SHEET DATA		Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013				Dec 31, 2012				Dec 31, 2011
Cash and cash equivalents		$	40,109,382				59,879,596				56,860,845				15,334,123				5,460,304
Net vessels (including drydock assets)			662,359,307				489,833,626				292,054,606				157,008,968				145,760,106
Total assets			778,197,608				562,214,991				357,965,633				179,960,468				160,631,102
Short-term revolving credit facility			—				—				—				—				30,265,000
Senior debt and capital leases			415,014,315				224,902,715				119,239,015				67,100,000				65,600,000
Paid in capital			337,211,121				338,064,585				244,883,077				117,073,352				65,747,599
Accumulated surplus/(deficit)		$	10,400,157				(10,864,492	)			(12,524,966	)			(8,682,363	)			(4,143,270	)

		For the years ended
CASH FLOW DATA		Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013				Dec 31, 2012				Dec 31, 2011
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	37,659,686				12,421,127				8,120,173				3,985,253				397,273
Net cash used in investing activities			(232,849,734	)			(209,741,529	)			(144,637,558	)			(14,941,514	)			(56,920,554	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		$	175,419,834				200,339,153				178,044,107				20,830,080				56,779,795

		For the years ended
FLEET OPERATING DATA		Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013				Dec 31, 2012				Dec 31, 2011
Time Charter Equivalent(1)
MR Tankers “Eco-design”		$	19,149				15,913				15,838				—				—
MR Tankers “Eco-mod”			20,223				14,793				13,732				13,294				13,097
Chemical Tankers “Eco-mod”		$	13,417				11,404				10,483				9,108				8,878
Fleet weighted average TCE(2)		$	18,309				14,393				12,850				10,911				11,100
Operating expenditure
Fleet operating costs per day(3)			5,976				6,197				6,152				6,103				6,150
Technical management fees per day(4)			357				359				379				344				334
Total fleet operating costs per day			6,333				6,556				6,531				6,447				6,484
Expenditures for drydock(5)			3,314,568				4,921,479				242,263				2,959,820				—
On-hire utilization(6)			99.70	%			99.90	%			99.54	%			99.10	%			99.80	%

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D. Risk Factors

Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and to our business in general. Other risks relate principally to the securities market and to ownership of our securities. The occurrence of any of the events described in this section could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating results and ability to pay dividends on our shares, or the trading price of our shares.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDUSTRY

The tanker industry is cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability, which may affect our results of operations.

The tanker industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability. A prolonged downturn in the tanker industry could adversely affect our ability to recharter our vessels or to sell them on the expiration or termination of their charters. In addition, the rates payable in respect of our vessels currently operating in a commercial pool, or any renewal or replacement charters that we enter into, may not be sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably. Fluctuations in charter rates and tanker values result from changes in the supply and demand for tanker capacity and changes in the supply and demand for oil, oil products and chemicals. The factors affecting the supply and demand for tankers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:

Factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of a variety of conditions and factors that can affect the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. Demand for transportation of oil products and chemicals over longer distances was significantly reduced during the last economic downturn. As of March 15, 2016, seven of our vessels were on time charters, seven of our vessels operated in a spot market oriented commercial pool and ten vessels operated in the spot market directly. We may seek to employ one or more of our vessels directly in the spot market upon re-delivery from the current time charterers. If time charter or spot charter rates decline, we may be unable to achieve a level of charter hire sufficient for us to operate our vessels profitably.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Any decrease in spot-charter rates in the future may adversely affect our results of operations.

As at March 15, 2016, seven of our vessels were employed in a spot market-oriented commercial pool and ten of our vessels operated directly in the spot market. The earnings of these vessels are based on the spot market charter rates of the pool or the particular voyage charter. We may seek to employ other vessels directly in the spot market upon re-delivery from the current charterers.

We may employ additional vessels that we may acquire in the future or vessels upon termination of existing time charter contracts in the spot-charter market. Where we plan to employ a vessel in the spot-charter market, we intend to generally place such vessel in a commercial pool that pertains to that vessel’s size class or to employ the vessel in the spot market directly. Although spot chartering is common in the tanker industry, the spot-charter market may fluctuate significantly based upon tanker and oil product/chemical supply and demand, and there have been periods when spot rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. The successful operation of our vessels in the competitive spot-charter market, including within commercial pools, depends upon, among other things, spot-charter rates and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent travelling unladen to pick up cargo. If spot-charter rates decline, we may be unable to operate our vessels trading in the spot market profitably, meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness or of dividends in the future. In addition, as charter rates for spot-charters are fixed for a single voyage that may last up to several weeks, during periods in which spot-charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases.

Our ability to renew the charters on our vessels on the expiration or termination of our current charters, or to enter into charters on vessels that we may acquire in the future, the charter rates payable under any replacement charters and vessel values will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the seaborne transportation of oil and chemical products.

A continuation of the recent significant declines in oil prices may adversely affect our growth prospects and results of operations.

Global crude oil prices have significantly declined since mid-2014. A continuation of lower oil prices or a further decline in oil prices may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends, as a result of, among other things:

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

We evaluate the carrying amounts of our vessels to determine if events have occurred that would require an impairment of their carrying amounts. The recoverable amount of vessels is reviewed based on events and changes in circumstances that would indicate that the carrying amount of the assets might not be recovered. The review for potential impairment indicators and projection of future cash flows related to our vessels is complex and requires us to make various estimates, including future charter rates, operating expenses and drydock costs. All of these items have been historically volatile.

An impairment charge is recognized if the carrying value is in excess of the estimated future undiscounted net operating cash flows. The impairment loss is measured based on the excess of the carrying amount over the fair market value of the asset. An impairment loss could adversely affect our results of operations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

The market supply of tankers is affected by a number of factors, such as demand for energy resources, oil, petroleum and chemical products, as well as the level of global and regional economic growth. If the capacity of new ships delivered exceeds the capacity of tankers being scrapped and lost, tanker capacity will increase. In addition, the global newbuilding MR product tanker orderbook, which extends to 2020, equalled approximately 8.8% of the existing MR product tanker fleet as of March 15, 2016, and the orderbook may increase further in proportion to the existing fleet. If the supply of tanker capacity increases and if the demand for tanker capacity does not increase correspondingly, charter rates and vessel values could materially decline. A reduction in charter rates and the value of our vessels may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business.

Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Aden. Sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea, with tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks. If piracy attacks result in the characterization of regions in which our vessels are deployed as “war risk” zones or Joint War Committee “war and strikes” listed areas by insurers, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including costs which may be incurred to the extent we employ onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention or hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

Global financial markets and economic conditions may adversely impact our ability to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms and otherwise negatively impact our business.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile. In the last economic downturn, operating businesses in the global economy faced tightening credit, weakening demand for goods and services, deteriorating international liquidity conditions and declining markets. There was a general decline in the willingness of banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly in the shipping industry due to the historically volatile asset values of vessels. Since 2008, lending by financial institutions worldwide decreased significantly compared to the period preceding 2008. As the shipping industry is highly dependent on the availability of credit to finance and expand operations, it was negatively affected by this decline.

Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the cost of borrowing funds during the last economic downturn increased as many lenders increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to current debt and reduced, and in some cases, ceased to provide funding to borrowers. Due to these factors, additional financing may not be available if needed by us on acceptable terms or at all if financial or economic markets deteriorate. If additional financing is not available when needed or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to expand or meet our obligations as they come due or we may be unable to enhance our existing business, complete additional vessel acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.

Changes in fuel, or bunkers, prices may adversely affect our results of operation.

Fuel, or bunkers, is a significant expense for our vessels employed in the spot market and can have a significant impact on pool earnings. For our vessels employed on time charters, the charterer is generally responsible for the cost and supply of fuel; however, such cost may affect the charter rates we are able to negotiate for our vessels. Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical

TABLE OF CONTENTS

developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by OPEC and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. In addition, fuel price increases may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

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

Demand for our vessels and services in transporting oil, oil products and chemicals depends upon world and regional oil markets. Any decrease in shipments of oil, oil products and chemicals in those markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Historically, those markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and events that affect the price, production and transport of oil, oil products and chemicals, including competition from alternative energy sources. Past slowdowns of the U.S. and world economies have resulted in reduced consumption of oil and oil products and decreased demand for our vessels and services, which reduced vessel earnings. Additional slowdowns could have similar effects on our operating results and may limit our ability to expand our fleet.

We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, which can adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. Compliance with such laws and regulations, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. We may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including costs relating to, among other things: air emissions including greenhouse gases; the management of ballast and bilge waters; maintenance and inspection; elimination of tin-based paint; development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. Environmental or other initiatives or incidents (such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) may result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes or changes to existing laws that may affect our operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with such regulatory initiatives, statutes or laws. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

A failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations. Environmental laws often impose strict liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances, which could subject us to liability without regard to whether we were negligent or at fault. Under the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil in U.S. waters, including the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. An oil spill could also result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability, remediation costs and natural resource damages under international and U.S. federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages, and could harm our reputation with current or potential charterers of our tankers. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although we have arranged insurance to cover certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we fail to comply with international safety regulations, we may be subject to increased liability, which may adversely affect our insurance coverage and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the International Maritime Organization’s International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”). The ISM Code requires ship owners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes the adoption of safety and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

environmental protection policies setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. If we fail to comply with the ISM Code or similar regulations, we may be subject to increased liability or our existing insurance coverage may be invalidated or decreased for our affected vessels. Such failure may also result in a denial of access to, or detention of our vessels in, certain ports.

The market values of our vessels may decrease, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit facilities and adversely affect our operating results.

The market values of tankers have historically experienced high volatility. The market prices for tankers declined significantly from historically high levels reached in early 2008 and remain at relatively low levels. The market value of our vessels will fluctuate depending on general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping industry and prevailing charterhire rates, competition from other shipping companies and other modes of transportation, the types, sizes and ages of vessels, applicable governmental regulations and the cost of newbuildings. If the market value of our fleet declines, we may not be able to obtain other financing or to incur debt on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. A decrease in these values could also cause us to breach certain loan-to-value covenants that are contained in our credit facilities and in future financing agreements that we may enter into from time to time. If we breach such covenants due to decreased vessel values and we are unable to remedy the relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on vessels in our fleet, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If our vessels suffer damage due to the inherent operational risks of the shipping industry, we may experience unexpected drydocking costs and delays or total loss of our vessels, which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The operation of an ocean-going vessel carries inherent risks. Our vessels and their cargoes will be at risk of being damaged or lost because of events, such as marine disasters, bad weather, climate change, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions, collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, cargo loss, latent defects, acts of God and other circumstances or events. Changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These hazards may result in death or injury to persons, loss of revenues or property, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships, market disruptions, delays or rerouting. In addition, the operation of tankers has unique operational risks associated with the transportation of oil and chemical products. An oil or chemical spill may cause significant environmental damage and the associated costs could exceed the insurance coverage available to us. Compared to other types of vessels, tankers are exposed to a higher risk of damage and loss by fire, whether ignited by a terrorist attack, collision or other causes, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil or chemicals transported in tankers.

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs if our insurance does not cover them in full. The loss of revenues while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, space at drydocking facilities is sometimes limited and not all drydocking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable drydocking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a drydocking facility that is not conveniently located to our vessels’ positions. The loss of earnings while such vessels wait for space or travel or are towed to more distant drydocking facilities may be significant. The total loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator. If we are unable to adequately maintain or safeguard our vessels, we may be unable to prevent any such damage, costs or loss which could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We operate our vessels worldwide and, as a result, our vessels are exposed to international risks which may reduce revenue or increase expenses.

The international shipping industry is an inherently risky business involving global operations. Our vessels are at risk of damage or loss because of events such as marine disasters, bad weather, climate change, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions, collisions, human error, war,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

terrorism, piracy, cargo loss, latent defects, acts of God and other circumstances or events. In addition, changing economic, regulatory and political conditions in some countries, including political and military conflicts, have from time to time resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and boycotts. These sorts of events could interfere with shipping routes and result in market disruptions, which may reduce our revenue and increase our expenses.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin and destination and transhipment points. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of the cargo or vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or delivery and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against vessel owners. It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. In addition, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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

We conduct most of our operations outside of the United States, and our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and available cash may be adversely affected by the effects of political instability, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities. Continuing conflicts and recent developments in the Middle East, and the presence of the United States and other armed forces in regions of conflict, may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute to further world economic instability and uncertainty in global financial markets. As a result of these factors, insurers have increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally. Future terrorist attacks could result in increased volatility of the financial markets and negatively impact the United States and global economy. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all.

In the past, political instability has also resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt international shipping, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea and the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, our reputation and the market for our securities could be adversely affected.

Although no vessels owned or operated by us have called on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and other authorities or countries identified by the U.S. government or other authorities as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, in the future our vessels may call on ports in these countries from time to time on charterers’ instructions in violation of contractual provisions that prohibit them from doing so. Sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time.

Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact the market for our common shares, our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us.

Our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation or the ability of our charters to meet their obligations to us or result in fines, penalties or sanctions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

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

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which would have a negative effect on our business and results of operations.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting or attaching a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our business or require us to pay significant amounts to have the arrest lifted, which would have a negative effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another of our vessels.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, which may adversely affect our business and results of operations.

A government could requisition for title or seize our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Also, a government could requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Technological innovation could reduce our charterhire income and the value of our vessels.

The charterhire rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors, including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy and the ability to load and discharge cargo quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter various harbors and ports, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new tankers are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charterhire payments, if any, we receive for our vessels once existing charters expire and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

If labor or other interruptions are not resolved in a timely manner, they could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We, indirectly through our technical managers, employ masters, officers and crews to operate our vessels, exposing us to the risk that industrial actions or other labor unrest may occur. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out as we expect and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

Delays in deliveries of vessels we may purchase or order , our decision to cancel an order for purchase of a vessel or our inability to otherwise complete the acquisitions of additional vessels for our fleet, could harm our operating results.

We expect to purchase and order additional vessels from time to time. The delivery of these vessels could be delayed, not completed or cancelled, which would delay or eliminate our expected receipt of revenues from the employment of these vessels. The seller could fail to deliver these vessels to us as agreed, or we could cancel a purchase contract because the seller has not met its obligations. The delivery of any vessels we may propose to acquire could be delayed because of, among other things, hostilities or political disturbances, non-performance of the purchase agreement with respect to the vessels by the seller, our inability to obtain requisite permits, approvals or financings or damage to or destruction of vessels while being operated by the seller prior to the delivery date.

If the delivery of any vessel is materially delayed or cancelled, especially if we have committed the vessel to a charter under which we become responsible for substantial liquidated damages to the customer as a result of the delay or cancellation, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

The delivery of vessels we may purchase or order could be delayed because of, among other things:

We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the number of vessels in our fleet and to maintain all our vessels, which will depend on our ability to obtain additional financing.

Our business strategy is based in part upon the expansion of our fleet through the purchase and ordering of additional vessels. We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the size of our fleet. We also have incurred significant capital expenditures to upgrade secondhand vessels we have required to Eco-Mod standards.

In addition, we will incur significant maintenance costs for our current fleet and any additional vessels we acquire. A newbuilding vessel must be drydocked within five years of its delivery from a shipyard and vessels are typically drydocked every 30 to 60 months thereafter depending on the vessel, not including any unexpected repairs. We estimate the cost to drydock a vessel is between $0.75 million and $1.5 million, depending on the size and condition of the vessel and the location of drydocking relative to the location of the vessel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

However, we may be unable to access required financing under these facilities if conditions change and we may be unsuccessful in obtaining financing for future fleet growth. To fund any shortfall for purchasing vessels or for drydocking costs from time to time, we may be required to incur additional debt or raise capital through the sale of equity securities. Use of cash from operations will reduce available cash. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. If we finance our expenditures by issuing debt securities, our financial leverage could increase. If we finance our expenditures by issuing equity securities, our shareholders’ ownership interest in us could be diluted.

We will not be able to take advantage of favorable opportunities in the spot market with respect to vessels employed on medium to long-term time charters.

As of March 15, 2016, seven of our vessels were employed under fixed rate time charter agreements. When our existing time charter agreements expire and upon delivery of any vessels to be ordered, we may enter into new time charter agreements for periods of one year or longer. Vessels committed to medium- and long-term time charters may not be available for spot charters during periods of increasing charter hire rates, when spot charters might be more profitable.

If we do not identify suitable vessels or shipping companies for acquisition or successfully integrate any acquired vessels or shipping companies, we may not be able to grow or effectively manage our growth.

One of our principal strategies is to continue expanding our operations and our fleet. Our future growth will depend upon a number of factors, some of which may not be within our control. These factors include our ability to:

Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The number of employees that perform services for us and our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate as we implement our plan to expand the size of our fleet and we may not be able to effectively hire more employees or adequately improve those systems. In addition, acquisitions may require additional equity issuances or the incurrence of additional debt (which may require additional amortization payments). If we are unable to successfully accommodate any growth, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired vessels and operations into existing infrastructures. The expansion of our fleet may impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff, and the management and staff of our technical managers, and may necessitate that we, and they, increase the number of personnel to support such expansion. We may not be successful in executing our growth plans and we may incur significant expenses and losses in connection with such growth plans.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If we purchase and operate second-hand vessels, we will be exposed to increased operating costs that could adversely affect our earnings and, as our fleet ages, the risks associated with older vessels could adversely affect our ability to obtain profitable charters.

Our current business strategy includes additional growth through the acquisition of new and second-hand vessels. While we typically inspect second-hand vessels prior to purchase, this does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. Generally, we do not receive the benefit of warranties from the builders of the second-hand vessels that we acquire. These factors could increase the ultimate cost of any second-hand vessel acquisitions by us.

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

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

An increase in operating or voyage expenses would decrease our earnings and cash flows.

For all vessels operating under time charters, the charterer is primarily responsible for voyage expenses and we are responsible for the vessel operating expenses. We may seek to employ vessels in the spot market following expiration of time charters. Under spot chartering arrangements, we will be responsible for all cost associated with operating the vessel, including operating expenses, voyage expenses, bunkers, port and canal costs.

Our vessel operating expenses include the costs of crew, provisions, deck and engine stores, insurance and maintenance, repairs and spares, which depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydocking repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. Increases in any of these expenses would decrease earnings and cash flow.

We may be unsuccessful in competing in the highly competitive international tanker market, which would negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to expand our business.

The operation of tanker vessels and transportation of petroleum and chemical products is extremely competitive, and our industry is capital intensive and highly fragmented. Competition arises primarily from other tanker owners, including major oil companies as well as independent tanker companies, some of which have substantially greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of oil products and chemicals can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the tanker and its operators to the charterers. We may be unable to compete effectively with other tanker owners, including major oil companies and independent tanker companies.

Our market share may decrease in the future. We may not be able to compete profitably as we seek to expand our business into new geographic regions or provide new services. New markets may require different skills, knowledge or strategies than we use in our current markets, and the competitors in those new markets may have greater financial strength and capital resources than we do.

We derive a substantial majority of our revenues from a limited number of customers, and the loss of any such customers could result in a significant loss of revenues and cash flow.

We have derived, and we believe we will continue to derive, a substantial majority of revenues and cash flow from a limited number of customers. Each of Mansel Ltd. and Navig8 Group accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2015; each of Cargill International SA, Geneva, Koch Shipping Inc., Mansel Ltd., and Womar Logistic Pte. Ltd (pool arrangement) accounted for more than 10%, of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2014; and each of Cargill International

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SA, Geneva, Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S, Itochu Enex Co., Ltd, Koch Shipping Inc., and Womar Logistic Pte. Ltd (pool arrangement) accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations during 2013. No other customer accounted for 10% or more of revenues from continuing operations during any of these periods.

If we lose a key customer or if a customer exercises its right under some charters to terminate the charter, we may be unable to enter into an adequate replacement charter for the applicable vessel or vessels. The loss of any of our significant customers or a reduction in revenues from them could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our charterers may terminate or default on their charters, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flow.

Our charters may terminate earlier than their scheduled expirations. The terms of our charters vary as to which events or occurrences will cause a charter to terminate or give the charterer the option to terminate the charter, but these generally include: a total or constructive loss of the relevant vessel; the governmental requisition for hire of the relevant vessel; the drydocking of the relevant vessel for a certain period of time; and the failure of the relevant vessel to meet specified performance criteria. In addition, the ability of each of our charterers to perform its obligations under a charter will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control. These factors may include general economic conditions, the condition of the tanker industry, the charter rates received for specific types of vessels and various operating expenses. The costs and delays associated with the default by a charterer under a charter of a vessel may be considerable and may adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our available cash.

We cannot predict whether our charterers will, upon the expiration of their charters, re-charter our vessels on favorable terms or at all. If our charterers are unable or decide not to re-charter our vessels, we may not be able to re-charter them on terms similar to our current charters or at all. In addition, the ability and willingness of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a time charter agreement with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the tanker shipping industry and the overall financial condition of the counterparties. Charterers are sensitive to the commodity markets and may be impacted by market forces affecting commodities. In depressed market conditions, there have been reports of charterers renegotiating their charters or defaulting on their obligations under charters. Our customers may fail to pay charter hire or attempt to renegotiate charter rates. If a counterparty fails to honor its obligations under agreements with us, it may be difficult for us to secure substitute employment for such vessel, and any new charter arrangements we secure in the spot market or on time charters may be at lower rates. Any failure by our charterers to meet their obligations to us or any renegotiation of our charter agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

GA Holdings LLC (“GA Holdings”) beneficially owns a significant amount of our outstanding common shares and is represented on our board of directors, which may limit other shareholders’ ability to influence our actions, and GA Holdings may compete with us.

As of March 15, 2016, GA Holdings beneficially owns approximately 16.8% of our outstanding common shares and has the power to exert considerable influence over matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors and the determination to enter into a corporate transaction or to prevent a transaction, regardless of whether our shareholders believe that any such transaction is in their or our best interests. For example, GA Holdings may have considerable influence in our determining whether to consummate a merger or acquisition or to sell all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, members of our management team are investors in GA Holdings, which may affect their decisions relative to matters directly or indirectly involving GA Holdings and us. We cannot assure you that the interests of GA Holdings will align with the interests of other shareholders. As a result, the market price of our common shares could be adversely affected. In addition, two members of our board of directors, Reginald Jones and Niall McComiskey, are affiliated with GA Holdings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GA Holdings may invest in entities that directly or indirectly compete with us, or companies in which GA Holdings currently invests may begin competing with us. GA Holdings may also separately pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business and, as a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. As a result of these relationships, when conflicts arise between the interests of GA Holdings and the interests of our other shareholders, our directors who are affiliated with GA Holdings may not be disinterested.

Our ability to obtain additional debt financing may be dependent on the performance of our then-existing charters and the creditworthiness of our charterers.

The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain additional financing at all or at a higher than anticipated cost may materially affect our results of operations and our ability to implement our business strategy.

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

Borrowing under our existing credit facilities requires us to dedicate a significant part of our cash flow from operations to paying principal and interest on our indebtedness, and we intend to incur additional debt in the future. These payments limit funds available for working capital, capital expenditures and other purposes. Amounts borrowed under our credit facilities bear interest at variable rates. Increases in prevailing rates could increase the amounts that we would have to pay to our lenders, even though the outstanding principal amount remains the same, and our net income and cash flows would decrease. We expect our earnings and cash flow to vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the tanker industry. If we do not generate or reserve enough cash flow from operations to satisfy our debt obligations, we may have to:

However, these alternatives, if necessary, may not be sufficient to allow us to meet our debt obligations. If we are unable to meet our debt obligations or if some other default occurs under our credit facilities, the lenders could elect to declare that debt, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against the vessels or other collateral securing that debt.

We are a holding company and depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations and to make dividend payments.

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries, which are all directly and indirectly wholly owned by us, conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. As a result, our ability to satisfy our financial obligations and to pay dividends to our shareholders depends on the ability of our subsidiaries to generate profits available for distribution to us and, to the extent that they are unable to generate profits, we will be unable to pay our creditors or dividends to our shareholders.

Our ability to grow may be adversely affected by our new dividend policy.

Under our new dividend policy, we expect to distribute on a quarterly basis as dividends on our shares of common stock cash in an amount equal to 60% of Earnings from Continuing Operations (which represents our earnings per share reported under U.S. GAAP as adjusted for unrealized and realized gains and losses and extraordinary items). Accordingly, our growth, if any, may not be as fast as businesses that do not distribute quarterly dividends. To the extent we do not have sufficient cash reserves or are unable to obtain financing from external sources, our dividend policy may significantly impair our ability to meet our financial needs or to grow.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our credit facilities contain restrictive covenants that limit the amount of cash that we may use for other corporate activities, which could negatively affect our growth and results of operations.

Our credit facilities and capital leases impose operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability, or the ability of our subsidiaries to:

Certain of our credit facilities and capital leases require us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy financial covenants. These financial ratios and covenants require us, among other things, to maintain minimum solvency, cash and cash equivalents, corporate net worth, working capital, loan-to-value and interest coverage levels and to avoid exceeding corporate leverage maximum.

As a result of these restrictions, we may need to seek consent from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders’ interests may be different from ours and we may not be able to obtain our lenders’ consent when needed. This may limit our ability to finance our future operations or capital requirements, make acquisitions or pursue business opportunities. Our ability to comply with covenants and restrictions contained in debt instruments may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, we may fail to comply with these covenants. If we breach any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our financing agreements, our obligations may become immediately due and payable, and the lenders’ commitment under our credit facilities, if any, to make further loans may terminate. A default under financing agreements could also result in foreclosure on any of our vessels and other assets securing related loans.

If interest rates increase, it will affect the interest rates under our credit facilities, which could affect our results of operations.

Amounts borrowed under our existing credit facilities bear interest at an annual rate ranging from 2.50% to 3.25% above LIBOR. Interest rates have recently been at historic lows and any normalization in interest rates would lead to an increase in LIBOR, which would affect the amount of interest payable on amounts that we were to drawdown under our credit facilities, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing we conduct in connection with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other

TABLE OF CONTENTS

areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company,” our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. We could be an “emerging growth company” until December 31, 2018. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statements and restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We are subject to certain risks with respect to our counterparties on contracts, and failure of such counterparties to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses or otherwise adversely affect our results of operation.

We enter into time-charter contracts, commercial pool agreements, ship management agreements, credit facilities and capital lease arrangements and other commercial arrangements. Such agreements and arrangements subject us to counterparty risks. The ability of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a contract with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the maritime and offshore industries, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, charter rates received for specific types of vessels, and various expenses. For example, the combination of a reduction of cash flow resulting from declines in world trade, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of availability of debt or equity financing may result in a significant reduction in the ability of our charterers to make charter payments to us. In addition, in depressed market conditions, our charterers and customers may no longer need a vessel that is currently under charter or contract or may be able to obtain a comparable vessel at lower rates. As a result, charterers and customers may seek to renegotiate the terms of their existing charter agreements or avoid their obligations under those contracts. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under agreements with us, we could sustain significant losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Our business depends upon key members of our senior management team who may not necessarily continue to work for us.

Our future success depends to a significant extent upon certain members of our senior management team. Our management team includes members who have substantial experience in the product tanker and chemical shipping industries and have worked with us since inception. Our management team is crucial to the execution of our business strategies and to the growth and development of our business. If the individuals were no longer affiliated with us, we may be unable to recruit other employees with equivalent talent and experience, and our business and financial condition may suffer as a result.

Our insurance may not be adequate to cover our losses that may result from our operations due to the inherent risks of the tanker industry.

We carry insurance to protect us against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business, including marine hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes pollution risks, crew insurance and war risk insurance. However, we may not be adequately insured to cover losses from our operational risks, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, our insurers may refuse to pay particular claims and our insurance may be voidable by the insurers if we take, or fail to take, certain action, such as failing to maintain certification of our vessels with applicable maritime regulatory organizations. Any significant uninsured or under-insured loss or liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates in the future during adverse insurance market conditions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of insurance more difficult for us to obtain due to increased premiums or reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, we may be required to make additional premium payments.

We receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability, from protection and indemnity associations. We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records, the claim records of our managers, as well as the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations. In addition, our protection and indemnity associations may not have enough resources to cover claims made against them. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expense to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations could result in fluctuations in our operating results.

We operate within the international shipping market, which utilizes the U.S. Dollar as its functional currency. As a consequence, the majority of our revenues and the majority of our expenses are in U.S. Dollars. However, we incur certain general and operating expenses, including vessel operating expenses and general and administrative expenses, in foreign currencies, the most significant of which are the Euro, Singapore Dollar, British Pound Sterling, Japanese Yen and Hong Kong Dollar. This partial mismatch in revenues and expenses could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. Dollar relative to other currencies.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely affect our operating results.

A number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to the concern about climate change. These regulatory measures in various jurisdictions include the adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. In December 2015, a total of 195 countries adopted the international Paris Agreement that deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and targets to limit global temperature increases. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change, including as a result of such international negotiations, could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

The effects upon the oil industry relating to climate change and the resulting regulations may also include declining demand for our services. We do not expect that demand for oil will lessen dramatically over the short-term, but in the long-term climate change may reduce the demand for oil or increased regulation of greenhouse gases may create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil industry could adversely affect the financial and operational aspects of our business, which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

We are incorporated in the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate case law or bankruptcy law and, as a result, shareholders may have fewer rights and protections under Marshall Islands law than under a typical jurisdiction in the United States.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act (the “BCA”). The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the law of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain U.S. jurisdictions. Shareholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our shareholders may have more

TABLE OF CONTENTS

difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, the Marshall Islands does not have a well-developed body of bankruptcy law. As such, in the case of a bankruptcy involving us, there may be a delay of bankruptcy proceedings and the ability of securityholders and creditors to receive recovery after a bankruptcy proceeding, and any such recovery may be less predictable.

It may be difficult to serve process on or enforce a U.S. judgment against us, our officers and our directors.

We are a Marshall Islands corporation and several of our executive offices are located outside of the United States. Most of our directors and officers reside outside the United States. In addition, a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of our directors, officers and experts are located outside of the United States. As a result, you may have difficulty serving legal process upon us or any of these persons within the United States. You may also have difficulty enforcing, both in and outside the United States, judgments you may obtain in U.S. courts against us or any of these persons in any action, including actions based upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal or state securities laws. In addition, there is substantial doubt that the courts of the Marshall Islands or of the non-U.S. jurisdictions in which our offices are located would enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws.

Our ability to pay dividends may be limited by the amount of cash we generate from operations following the payment of fees and expenses, by the establishment of any reserves by our board of directors and by additional factors unrelated to our profitability.

We intend to pay regular quarterly dividends on our common shares. The amount of dividends we pay will depend in part upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations. We may not, however, have sufficient cash available each quarter to pay dividends, as a result of insufficient levels of profit, restrictions on the payment of dividends and the decisions of our management and directors. The amount of cash we have available for dividends may fluctuate upon, among other things:

The actual amount of cash we will have available for dividends will also depend on many factors, including:

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our net income or loss for the period, which may be affected by non-cash items. We may incur other expenses or liabilities that could reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. Our credit facilities also restrict our ability

TABLE OF CONTENTS

to declare and pay dividends if an event of default has occurred and is continuing or if the payment of the dividend would result in an event of default. In addition, Marshall Islands law generally prohibits the payment of dividends other than from surplus (retained earnings in excess of consideration received for the sale of stock above the par value of the stock), or while a company is insolvent or if it would be rendered insolvent by the payment of such a dividend, and any dividend may be discontinued at the discretion of our board of directors. As a result of these or other factors, we may pay dividends during periods when we record losses and may not pay dividends during periods when we record income.

Future sales of our common shares could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.

The market price for our common shares could decline as a result of sales by existing shareholders, including GA Holdings, of large numbers of our common shares, or as a result of the perception that such sales may occur. Sales of our common shares by these shareholders also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at the prices that we deem appropriate.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents could make it difficult for our shareholders to replace or remove our current board of directors or could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a merger or acquisition, which could adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

Several provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for our shareholders to change the composition of our board of directors in any one year, preventing them from changing the composition of management. In addition, the same provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that shareholders may consider favorable. These provisions include:

These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

We are an “emerging growth company”, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies” will make our common shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” Investors may find our common shares less attractive because we rely on certain of these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

Because of our status as an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act status, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) for so long as we are an emerging growth company. As long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide shareholders may be different from information provided by other public companies. We may take advantage of these provisions until December 31, 2018 or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

be an emerging growth company if, among other things, we have more than $1.0 billion in “total annual gross revenues” during the most recently completed fiscal year.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) is not currently permitted to inspect our independent accounting firm and you may not benefit from such inspections.

Auditors of U.S. public companies are required by law to undergo periodic PCAOB inspections to assess their compliance with U.S. law and professional standards in connection with performance of audits of financial statements filed with the SEC. Certain European Union countries, including Ireland, do not currently permit the PCAOB to conduct inspections of accounting firms established and operating in such European Union countries, even if they are part of major international firms. Accordingly, unlike for most U.S. public companies, the PCAOB is currently prevented from evaluating our auditor’s performance of audits and its quality control procedures, and, unlike shareholders of most U.S. public companies, we and our shareholders are deprived of the possible benefits of such inspections.

Tax Risks

U.S. tax authorities could treat us as a “passive foreign investment company,” which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”), for U.S. federal income tax purposes if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of “passive income” or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” generally includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services generally does not constitute “passive income.” U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to an adverse U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

Based upon our operations as described herein, we do not believe that our income from our time charters should be treated as “passive income” for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, and, consequently, the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income should not constitute passive assets. Accordingly, based on our current operations, we do not believe we will be treated as a PFIC with respect to any taxable year.

There is substantial legal authority supporting this position consisting of case law and U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage 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. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if the nature and extent of our operations change.

If the IRS were successful in asserting that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, U.S. shareholders would face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless a shareholder makes an election available under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (“the Code”), (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed below under “Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders”), excess distributions and any gain from the disposition of such shareholder’s common shares would be allocated ratably over the shareholder’s holding period of the common shares and the amounts allocated to the taxable year of the excess distribution or sale or other disposition and to any year before we became a PFIC would be taxed as ordinary income. The amount allocated to each other taxable year would be subject to tax at the highest rate in effect for individuals or corporations, as appropriate, for that taxable year, and an interest charge would be imposed with respect to such tax. See “Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders” for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to United States shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

We may have to pay tax on U.S. source shipping income, which would reduce our earnings.

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), 50% of the gross shipping income of a corporation that owns or charters vessels, as we and our subsidiaries do, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder or that corporation is entitled to an exemption from such tax under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty.

We have taken the position that we qualified for this statutory exemption for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes for our 2015 taxable year and we intend to so qualify for future taxable years. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption and thereby cause us to become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income. For example, there is a risk that we could no longer qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for a particular taxable year if “non-qualified” shareholders with a 5% or greater interest in our stock were, in combination with each other, to own 50% or more of the outstanding shares of our stock on more than half the days during the taxable year. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we can give no assurances on our tax-exempt status or that of any of our subsidiaries.

If we or our subsidiaries were not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, we or our subsidiaries would be subject for such year to an effective 4% U.S. federal income tax on the shipping income we or our subsidiaries derive during the year which is attributable to the transport of cargoes to or from the United States. The imposition of this taxation would have a negative effect on our business and would decrease our earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

We may be subject to additional taxes, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

We and our subsidiaries are subject to tax in certain jurisdictions in which we or our subsidiaries are organized, own assets or have operations. In computing our tax obligations in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that, upon review of these positions, the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company

We are Ardmore Shipping Corporation. We provide seaborne transportation of petroleum products and chemicals worldwide to oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, and chemical companies, with our modern, fuel-efficient fleet of mid-size product and chemical tankers. Our current fleet consists of 24 vessels, all of which are in operation.

Ardmore Shipping Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands on May 14, 2013. We commenced business operations through our predecessor company, Ardmore Shipping LLC, on April 15, 2010. On August 6, 2013, we completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock. Prior to our IPO, GA Holdings LLC, who was our sole shareholder, exchanged its 100% interest in Ardmore Shipping LLC for 8,049,500 shares of Ardmore Shipping Corporation, and Ardmore Shipping LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Ardmore Shipping Corporation. In March 2014, we completed a follow-on public offering of 8,050,000 common shares. In November 2015, GA Holdings LLC sold 4,000,000 of its shares of our common stock in an underwritten public offering. As of March 15, 2016, we had 25,913,237 shares of our common stock outstanding and GA Holdings LLC, our largest shareholder, held 4,348,798, or approximately 16.8%, of our outstanding common stock.

We have 45 wholly owned subsidiaries, a list of which is included as Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report. The substantial majority of these entities represent single ship-owning companies for our fleet.

We maintain our principal executive and management offices at Cumberland House, 1 Victoria Street, 5^th Floor, Hamilton, HM 11, Bermuda. Our telephone number at these offices is +1 441 405 7800. Ardmore Shipping (Bermuda) Limited (“ASBL”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Bermuda, carries out our management services and associated functions. Ardmore Shipping Services (Ireland) Limited (“ASSIL”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Ireland, provides our corporate, accounting, fleet administration and operations services. Ardmore Shipping (Asia) Pte. Limited (“ASA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Singapore, performs commercial management and chartering services for us. Ardmore Shipping (Americas) LLC (“ASUS”), a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Delaware, performs commercial management and chartering services for us.

Vessel Acquisitions

Our current fleet consists of 24 double-hulled product and chemical tankers, all of which are in operation. We acquired ten of our vessels as second-hand vessels, all of which we have upgraded to increase efficiency and improve performance. In 2013, 2014, and 2015 we paid an aggregate of $144.6 million, $209.7 million and $232.9 million, respectively, in capital expenditures for vessel acquisitions, vessel equipment and newbuilding orders.

As of December 31, 2010, our operating fleet consisted of four vessels. During 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, we acquired or took delivery of two, none, two, six and 10 vessels, respectively.

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We continue to qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We may take advantage of these provisions until December 31, 2018 or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.0 billion in “total annual gross revenues” during our most recently completed fiscal year, if we become a “large accelerated filer” with market capitalization of more than $700 million, or as of any date on which we

TABLE OF CONTENTS

have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt over the three year period to such date. For as long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide shareholders may be different from information provided by other public companies. We have irrevocably chosen to “opt out” of the extended transition period relating to the exemption from new or revised financial accounting standards and, as a result, we comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for non-emerging growth companies.

B. Business Overview

We commenced business operations in April 2010 through our predecessor company with the goal of building an enduring product and chemical tanker company that emphasizes service excellence, innovation, and operational efficiency through our focus on high quality, fuel-efficient vessels. We are led by a team of experienced senior managers who have previously held senior management positions with highly regarded public shipping companies and financial institutions.

We are strategically focused on modern, fuel-efficient, mid-size product and chemical tankers. We actively pursue opportunities to exploit the overlap we believe exists between the clean petroleum product (“CPP”) and chemical sectors in order to enhance earnings, and also seek to engage in more complex CPP trades, such as multi-grade and multi-port loading and discharging operations, where our knowledge of chemical operations is beneficial to our CPP customers.

Our fuel-efficient operations are designed to enhance our investment returns and provide value-added service to our customers. We believe we are on the forefront of fuel efficiency and emissions reduction trends and are well positioned to capitalize on these developments by (a) constructing new economically advanced vessels (“Eco-design”), (b) modifying existing vessels to improve fuel efficiency (“Eco-mod”) and (c) equipping our fleet with engine diagnostic and ship performance management systems to optimize voyage performance. As a result, we have reduced the fuel consumption of our Eco-mod vessels which, in some cases, achieve performance close to that of new Eco-design vessels. Our acquisition strategy is to build our fleet with Eco-design newbuildings and modern second-hand vessels that can be upgraded to Eco-mod.

We have no related-party transactions concerning our vessel operations. Certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries carry out our management and administrative services, with ASBL providing our management services and associated functions, ASSIL providing our corporate, accounting, fleet administration and operations services and ASA and ASUS performing our commercial management and chartering services. Technical management of our vessels is performed by a combination of ASSIL and our third-party technical managers. ASSIL’s operations team is directly responsible for insurance and for overseeing significant operational functions of the third-party technical managers. ASSIL’s operations team also supervises the construction of our newbuilding vessels in close coordination with the third-party supervision teams. We have a resolute focus on both high-quality service and efficient operations, and we believe that our corporate overhead and operating expenses are among the lowest of our peers.

We are commercially independent, as we have no blanket employment arrangements with third-party or related-party commercial managers. We market our services both directly to a broad range of customers, including oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, chemical companies, and a range of pooling service providers. We monitor the tanker markets to understand and best utilize our vessels and may change our chartering strategy to take advantage of changing market conditions.

We believe that the market for mid-size product and chemical tankers has recovered from cyclical lows, resulting from strong underlying demand growth driven by both cyclical and secular trends, as well as a reduction in the supply overhang due to reduced ordering activity and an extended period of fleet growth at a rate below that of demand growth. We believe that we are well positioned to benefit from the market recovery with a modern, fuel-efficient fleet, access to capital for growth, a diverse and high-quality customer base, an emphasis on service excellence in an increasingly demanding regulatory environment and a relative cost advantage in assets, operations and corporate overhead.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fleet List

Our current fleet consists of 24 vessels, including 15 Eco-design and nine Eco-mod vessels, all of which are in operation. The average age of our vessels at March 15, 2016, is 4.3 years.

Vessel Name

Type

Dwt Tonnes

IMO

Built

Country

Flag

Specification

Ardmore Seavaliant

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Feb-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seaventure

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Jun-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seavantage

Product/Chemical

49,997

2/3

Jan-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seavanguard

Product/Chemical

49,998

2/3

Feb-14

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Sealion

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

May-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seafox

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Jun-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seawolf

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Aug-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seahawk

Product/Chemical

49,999

2/3

Nov-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Endeavour

Product/Chemical

49,997

2/3

Jul-13

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Seafarer

Product/Chemical

45,744

3

Aug-04

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seatrader

Product

47,141

—

Dec-02

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seamaster

Product/Chemical

45,840

3

Sep-04

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Seamariner

Product

45,726

—

Oct-06

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Sealeader

Product

47,463

—

Aug-08

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Sealifter

Product

47,472

—

Jul-08

Japan

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Dauntless

Product/Chemical

37,764

2

Feb-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Defender

Product/Chemical

37,791

2

Feb-15

Korea

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Centurion

Product/Chemical

29,006

2

Nov-05

Korea

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Cherokee

Product/Chemical

25,215

2

Jan-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Cheyenne

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Mar-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Chinook

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Jul-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Chippewa

Product/Chemical

25,217

2

Nov-15

Japan

MI

Eco-design

Ardmore Calypso

Product/Chemical

17,589

2

Jan-10

Korea

MI

Eco-mod

Ardmore Capella

Product/Chemical

17,567

2

Jan-10

Korea

MI

Eco-mod

Total

24

969,953

Business Strategy

Our objective is to consolidate our position as a market leader in modern, fuel-efficient, mid-size product and chemical tankers by engaging in well-timed growth and utilizing our operational expertise and quality-focused approach to provide value-added services to our customers. The key elements of our business strategy include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Corporate Officers, Staff and Seafarers

Biographical information with respect to each of our directors and executive officers is set forth in Item 6 (“Directors, Senior Management and Employees”) of this Annual Report.

As at March 15, 2016, we employed 30 full-time staff. We engage the services of two third-party ship management companies, Thome Ship Management and Univan Ship Management Limited, to provide technical management and crewing for our vessels, who are supervised by our senior management team. We currently employ, through our third-party technical managers, approximately 772 seafarers, including 356 officers and cadets and 416 crew.

Commercial management is provided directly by us, in the case of fixed time charters and spot charters that we enter into directly, and by third-party commercial pool managers, in the case of vessels participating in pooling arrangements. Commercial pools can provide many benefits for vessels operating in the spot market, including the ability to generate higher returns due to the economies of scale derived by operating a larger fleet.

Customers

Our customers include national, regional, and international companies and our fleet is employed through a mixture of time charters (including some time charters with profit participation components), direct spot charter employment and commercial pool employment. We believe that developing strong relationships with the end users of our services allows us to better satisfy their needs with appropriate and capable vessels. A prospective charterer’s financial condition, creditworthiness, and reliability track record are important factors in negotiating our vessels’ employment.

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as our reputation. Ownership of tanker vessels is highly fragmented and is divided among publicly listed companies, state-controlled owners and private ship-owners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The International Product and Chemical Tanker Industry

The information and data contained in this section relating to the international product and chemical tanker shipping industries has been provided by Drewry Maritime Research (“Drewry”), and is taken from Drewry’s database and other sources. Drewry has advised that: (i) some information in their database is derived from estimates or subjective judgments; (ii) the information in the databases of other maritime data collection agencies may differ from the information in their database. We believe that all third-party data provided in this section, “The International Product and Chemical Tanker Industry,” is reliable.

The world tanker fleet is generally divided into four main categories of vessels based on the main type of cargo carried. These categories are crude oil, refined petroleum products (both clean and dirty products), hereinafter referred to as products, chemicals, (including vegetable oils and fats) and specialist products such as bitumen. There is some overlap between the main tanker types and the cargoes carried which is explained in the table below.

Principal Tanker Types and Main Cargoes Carried

Vessel Type		Ship Size – Dwt		Tank Type		IMO Status		Principal Cargo		Other Cargoes
UL/VLCC		200,000+		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil
Suezmax		120,000 – 199,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil
Aframax		80,000 – 119,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil		Refined Products – Dirty
Panamax		60,000 – 79,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Crude Oil		Refined Products – Dirty
Long Range 3 (LR3)		120,000 – 199,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products
Long Range 2 (LR2)		80,000 – 119,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products		Crude; Chemicals/Veg Oils
Long Range 1 (LR1)		60,000 – 79,999		Coated		Non IMO		Refined Products		Crude; Chemicals/Veg Oils
Medium Range (MR)		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		IMO 2		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		IMO 3		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
		25,000 – 59,999		Coated		Non IM O		Refined Products
		25,000 – 59,999		Uncoated		Non IMO		Refined Products
Short Range (SR)		10,000 – 24,999		Coated		Non-IMO		Refined Products
		10,000 – 24,999		Coated		IMO 2		Refined Products		Chemicals/Veg Oils
Stainless Steel Tankers		10,000+		Stainless		IMO 2		Chemicals/Veg Oils		Refined Products
Specialist Tankers		10,000+		Uncoated/Coated		Non IMO		Various e.g Bitumen

Source: Drewry

In the product and chemical sectors there are a number of vessels that possess the ability to carry both products and some chemicals. These vessels therefore represent a “swing” element in supply in both of these markets. However, in practice many vessels will tend to trade in either refined products or chemicals/vegetable oils and fats.

In 2015, a total of 3.26 billion tons of crude oil, oil products and chemicals were moved by sea. This was 3.9% up on 2014 (3.13 billion tons) and is the result of record crude oil imports by Asian economies due to increased stockpiling at lower crude prices and rising refining activity leading to further growth in seaborne product trades. Over the period from 2005 to 2015, seaborne trade in oil products grew at an annual average rate of 4.4% and in 2015 totalled 946 million tons. The growth in seaborne products trade between 2014 and 2015 was 6.1%, based on provisional figures.

Between 2010 and 2015 seaborne trade grew by an annual rate of 0.2% for crude oil, 3.6% for oil products, and 3.4% for chemicals. Over the period from 2010 to 2015, seaborne trade in refined products and chemicals were two of the fastest growing sectors of international shipping. Changes in world seaborne tanker trade volumes in the period 2005 to 2015 are shown in the table below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

World Seaborne Tanker Trade Volumes

Year		Crude Oil								Oil Products								Chemicals								Total								Global GDP (IMF) %y-o-y
		Mill T				%y-o-y				Mill T				%y-o-y				Mill T				%y-o-y				Mill T				%y-o-y
2005			2,076				1.6	%			618				8.1	%			156				10.5	%			2,850				3.4	%			4.6	%
2006			2,086				0.5	%			648				4.9	%			166				6.5	%			2,900				1.8	%			5.3	%
2007			2,102				0.8	%			695				7.2	%			170				2.5	%			2,967				2.3	%			5.4	%
2008			2,111				0.4	%			745				7.2	%			169				-0.6	%			3,025				1.9	%			2.6	%
2009			2,025				-4.1	%			733				-1.6	%			178				5.4	%			2,936				-2.9	%			-0.9	%
2010			2,066				2.0	%			791				7.9	%			189				6.2	%			3,046				3.7	%			5.2	%
2011			2,032				-1.6	%			842				6.5	%			194				2.6	%			3,068				0.7	%			4.2	%
2012			2,075				2.1	%			849				0.8	%			202				4.2	%			3,126				1.9	%			3.4	%
2013			2,011				-3.1	%			882				3.9	%			211				4.1	%			3,104				-0.7	%			3.3	%
2014			2,028				0.8	%			891				1.0	%			215				2.1	%			3,134				1.0	%			3.4	%
2015(1)			2,085				2.8	%			946				6.1	%			224				4.2	%			3,255				3.9	%			3.1	%
CAGR (2010 – 2015)			0.2	%							3.6	%							3.4	%							1.3	%
CAGR (2005 – 2015)			0.0	%							4.4	%							3.7	%							1.3	%

Source: Drewry

The Product Tanker Industry

While crude oil tankers transport crude oil from points of production to points of consumption, typically oil refineries in consuming countries, product tankers can carry both refined and unrefined petroleum products, including some crude oil, as well as fuel oil and vacuum gas oil (often referred to as ‘dirty products’) and gas oil, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and naphtha (often referred to as ‘clean products’). Tankers with no International Maritime Organisation (IMO) certification but with coated cargo tanks are designed to carry products, while tankers with IMO certification (normally IMO 2 or IMO 3) and coated cargo tanks are able to carry both products and chemicals/vegetable oils and fats. Given the above, a tanker with IMO 2 certification and with an average tank size in excess of 3,000 cubic metres is normally classified as a product tanker, while a tanker with IMO 2 certification and an average tank size of less than 3,000 cubic metres is normally categorised as a chemical tanker.

In essence, products can be carried in coated non IMO tankers and IMO rated coated tankers. By this definition the product capable tanker fleet comprises just over 50% of the total tanker fleet (above 10,000 dwt) in numbers terms, and are therefore a key part of the global tanker trade.

Demand for product tankers is dictated by world oil demand and trade, which is influenced by various factors including economic activity, geographic changes in oil production, consumption and refinery capacity, oil prices, the availability of transport alternatives (such as pipelines) and inventory policies of nations and oil trading companies. Tanker demand is a product of (i) the volume of cargo transported in tankers, multiplied by (ii) the distance that cargo is transported.

Oil demand growth and the changing location of oil supply have altered the structure of the tanker market in recent years. Between 2003 and 2008, more than half of new crude oil production was located in the Middle East and Africa. These two regions still produced approximately one third of global supply in 2014. However, in recent years, the United States (U.S.) and Canadian crude oil production has increased as a result of the development of shale oil deposits. This has reduced U.S. seaborne crude import demand, but is resulting in greater oil product volumes becoming available for export from the U.S. Gulf, because refiners have access to plentiful supplies of competitively priced feedstock.

In addition, in 2014 the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the U.S. began classifying exports of U.S. treated condensate as “kerosene and light gas oils” in its Petroleum Supply Monthly report. This followed on from a decision by the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to allow the export of distilled condensate as a refined product. Field condensate, which can be fed into a refinery or used as a chemical plant feedstock, had until 2014 been considered as an upstream product and therefore restricted for export under U.S. law. However, the BIS ruling that field stabilization processing changes condensate enough that it

TABLE OF CONTENTS

becomes a new product, which has opened up further export opportunities. In short, changes in the U.S. oil market have had a very positive impact on product tanker demand because U.S. product exports have risen steeply since 2009 as the chart below indicates.

U.S. Crude Oil Production and U.S. Product Exports

Source: Drewry

Much of the increase in U.S. exports have gone to satisfy growing South American and African demand for oil products while other U.S. exports have been moving transatlantic into Europe, where local refinery shutdowns have supported the rise in import of products.

In terms of tonne-mile demand, a notable development in the patterns of world refining over the last five years has been the shift towards crude oil producing regions developing their own refinery capacity, while at the same time, poor refinery margins have led to closures of refineries in the developed world, most notably in Europe and on the U.S. east coast. In this context it is already apparent that the closures of refining capacity in the developed world are prompting longer haul imports to cater for product demand, for instance on routes such as the West Coast India to the U.S. eastern seaboard and Europe. Refinery closures close to consuming regions elsewhere in the world will also help to support product import demand. For example, in Australia, trade from Singapore has become increasingly important to compensate for the conversion of local producing refineries into storage depots. This is part of a general increase in intra-Asian trade which is already boosting product tanker demand.

As a result of the growth in trade and the changes in the location of refinery capacity, demand for product tankers expressed in terms of tonne-miles grew by a CAGR of 5.8% between 2005 and 2015. Generally growth in products trade and product tanker demand is more consistent and less volatile than crude oil trade.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Seaborne Product Trade and Ton Mile Demand

Source: Drewry

Product Tanker Supply

The global product tanker fleet is classified as any non stainless steel/specialised tanker between 10,000 dwt and 60,000 dwt, as well as coated and other “product-capable” vessels over 60,000 dwt. As of March 15, 2016 the world product tanker capable fleet consisted of 3,452 vessels with a combined capacity of 158.6 million dwt. Within the total tanker fleet MR vessels account for 34% of total ship numbers and in the global product tanker fleet they account for 59% of total ship numbers. MR vessels are considered the “workhorses” of the fleet.

As of March 15, 2016 the MR product tanker orderbook was 171 vessels totalling 7.9 million dwt. The MR orderbook as a percentage of the existing MR fleet in terms of dwt was 8.8%, compared with close to 50% at the last peak in 2008. Based on scheduled deliveries, 4.3 million dwt of MR product tankers are due for delivery in the remainder of 2016 and a further 2.8 million dwt in 2017. Approximately 53% of the vessels on order in the MR category are scheduled to be delivered in 2016 and this would increase the MR fleet by 4.8%, assuming no vessel scrapping. However, in recent years the orderbook has been affected by the non-delivery of vessels or “slippage” as it is sometimes referred to. Current estimates suggest that in 2015, approximately 25% of vessels across the entire tanker orderbook scheduled for delivery in 2015 did not deliver during the year. Some of the non-delivery was a result or delays, either through mutual agreement or through shipyard problems, whilst some was due to vessel cancellations. Slippage is likely to remain an issue going forward and will continue to temper fleet growth.

The other factor that will affect future supply is vessel scrapping. The volume of scrapping is a function primarily of the age profile of the fleet, scrap prices in relation to current and prospective charter market conditions, as well as operating, repair and survey costs. In 2014, a total of 106 tankers of a combined 9.9 million dwt were sold for scrap, of which 26 tankers of approximately 1 million dwt were in the MR size range. In comparison, only 41 tankers with combined capacity of 1.96 million dwt of tonnage were scrapped in 2015, of which 18 tankers with total capacity of 0.6 million dwt were in the MR size range. The buoyancy in the tanker market since late 2014 has enticed owners to defer demolitions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

World Tanker Fleet & Orderbook: March 15, 2016

Vessel Type/Class		Existing Fleet								Size Dwt				Orderbook								% Fleet Dwt				Orderbook Delivery Schedule (M Dwt)
		Number				M Dwt								Number				M Dwt								2016				2017				2018				2019+
Crude Tankers
VLCC/ULCC			659				202.7				200,000+				127				39.2				19.3	%			16.6				14.2				7.8				0.6
Suezmax			486				75.4				120,000 – 199,999				103				16.2				21.5	%			5.0				9.9				1.3				0.0
Aframax (Uncoated)			631				67.9				80,000 – 119,999				83				9.3				13.7	%			2.6				4.0				2.7				0.0
Panamax (Uncoated)			80				5.7				60,000 – 79,999				3				0.2				2.9	%			0.1				0.1				0.0				0.0
Crude Tankers			1,856				351.7								316				64.9				18.4	%			24.3				28.2				11.8				0.6
Long Range 3 (LR3)			12				1.9				120,000 – 199,999				2				0.3				15.8	%			0.3				0.0				0.0				0.0
Long Range 2 (LR2)			287				31.2				80,000 – 119,999				79				8.3				26.5	%			4.0				3.7				0.6				0.0
Long Range 1 (LR1)			326				23.9				60,000 – 79,999				61				4.0				16.7	%			1.5				2.0				0.5				0.0
LR Product Tankers			625				57.0								142				12.6				22.1	%			5.8				5.7				1.1				0.0
Medium Range (MR)
Coated IMO 2(1)			266				10.6				25,000 – 59,999				12				0.6				5.7	%			0.2				0.3				0.1				0.0
Coated IMO 3 & Non IMO Coated/Uncoated			1,756				79.2				25,000 – 59,999				159				7.3				9.2	%			4.1				2.5				0.4				0.3
Total MR			2,022				89.8								171				7.9				8.8	%			4.3				2.8				0.5				0.3
Short Range			805				11.8				10,000 – 24,999				39				0.8				6.8	%			0.2				0.4				0.1				0.1
Stainless Steel Tankers(2)			601				13.0				10,000+				142				3.8				29.2	%			1.6				1.3				0.7				0.2
Specialist Tankers			39				0.8				10,000+				14				0.3				37.5	%			0.1				0.1				0.1				0.0
Total All Tankers			5,948				524.1								824				90.2				17.2	%			36.3				38.5				14.3				1.2

Source: Drewry

The Product Tanker Freight Market

Between 2003 and early 2008, the differential between demand and supply for tankers remained narrow and rates were generally very firm. Following the recession in 2009, tanker demand nosedived, coinciding with substantial tonnage entering the fleet, driving earnings down until the market started to recover in 2014. Product tanker fleet growth in 2015 was approximately 5.0% in capacity terms and with demand growing by approximately 6.0% improved utilization rates in the sector have led to much stronger freight rates. The specific factors which have led to improved market conditions include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For example, the average time charter equivalent (“TCE”) of the spot rate for a Medium Range (MR) product tanker in 2015 was $18,422/day, compared with an average of $9,592/day in 2014. On a one-year time charter rate basis, average MR rates rose from $14,438/day in 2014 to $17,271/day in 2015. The trend in MR spot and time charter rates in the period from 2005 to February 2016 is shown in the chart below.

MR Product Tanker Freight Rates
(US$ Per Day)

Source: Drewry

It should be noted that these rates are based on a standard MR vessel built circa 2010, and there is some evidence that more-recently built vessels constructed to particularly fuel-efficient “Eco” specifications are currently able to achieve an additional premium on these levels of up to 10%.

Asset Values

Product tanker asset values have also fluctuated over time, and there is a relationship between changes in asset values and the charter market. Newbuilding prices increased significantly between 2003 and early 2008, primarily as a result of increased tanker demand and rising freight rates. Current newbuilding prices are significantly below the peaks reported at the height of the market in 2008, and in February 2016 the newbuilding price for an MR product tanker was estimated at $35.0 million.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The secondhand sale and purchase market has traditionally been relatively liquid, with tankers changing hands between owners on a regular basis. Secondhand prices peaked over the summer of 2008 and have since followed a similar path to both freight rates and newbuilding prices. In February 2016 a five year old MR product tanker was estimated to have a value of $27.0 million. The trend in newbuilding prices, second hand values and freight rates for an MR tanker in the period 2005 to February 2016 are summarised in the table below.

MR Product Tankers: Freight Rate and Asset Value Summary

Period Averages		Spot (US$/day)				Timecharter (US$/day)								Asset Prices (US$ million)
						1 Year				3 Year				Newbuild				5 Year Old
2005			29,043				25,271				21,794				41.8				44.3
2006			25,609				26,792				21,675				46.8				47.1
2007			23,682				25,367				22,146				49.5				50.0
2008			21,156				23,092				21,500				52.1				51.0
2009			9,043				14,850				15,267				40.3				30.2
2010			10,568				12,388				13,646				35.9				26.4
2011			11,150				13,633				14,575				36.1				28.3
2012			11,142				13,325				14,500				33.2				25.2
2013			13,517				14,346				15,161				33.8				26.2
2014			9,592				14,438				15,417				36.9				27.1
2015			18,422				17,271				16,250				36.1				25.8
Feb-16			14,560				18,200				16,000				35.0				27.0
2011 – 2015
5 Year Avg			12,764				14,603				15,181				35.2				26.5
5 Year Low			3,100				12,500				14,000				32.5				22.0
5 Year High			30,800				19,500				17,500				37.0				29.5
2006 – 2015
10 Yr Avg			15,388				17,550				17,014				40.1				33.7
10 Yr Low			3,100				10,800				12,200				32.5				22.0
10 Yr High			40,834				30,000				24,500				54.0				53.5

Source: Drewry

The Chemical Tanker Industry

Introduction

The world chemical industry is one of the largest and most diversified industries in the world with more than 1,000 large and medium-sized companies manufacturing over 70,000 different product lines. Although most specialist chemicals are used locally, world trade is becoming an increasingly prominent part of the global chemical industry for a number of reasons ranging from local stock imbalances to a lack of local production of particular chemicals in various parts of the world. In broad terms, seaborne trade growth in bulk liquid chemicals has tracked trends in economic activity and globalization.

The seaborne transportation of chemicals is technically and logistically complex compared with the transportation of crude oil and oil products, with cargoes ranging from hazardous and noxious chemicals to products such as edible oils and fats. Consequently, the chemical tanker sector comprises a wide array of specially constructed small and medium sized tankers designed to carry chemical products in various stages of production.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chemical Tanker Demand

Demand for chemicals is affected by, among other things, general economic conditions (including increases and decreases in industrial production and transportation), chemical prices, feedstock costs and chemical production capacity. Given their industrial usage, chemical demand, and as a result demand for seaborne transport, is well-correlated with global GDP. Seaborne trade in chemicals is characterized by a wide range of individual cargoes and a relatively regionalized structure compared with crude and products. Given the geographical complexity and the diversity of cargoes involved and the way in which some cargoes are transported, estimating total seaborne trade in chemicals is difficult. Essentially, there are four main types of chemical transported by sea; organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals; vegetable oils and fats and other commodities such as molasses.

Seaborne Chemical Trades

(Million Tons)

Source: Drewry

The U.S. is the largest exporter of organic chemicals, accounting for approximately 25% of all exports, while China accounts for approximately one-third of total organic chemical imports. The four organic chemicals most frequently traded by sea are methanol, styrene, benzene and P-xylene. Inorganic chemical trade accounts for approximately 10-15% of total seaborne movements. They are not traded geographically as wide as organic chemicals and they also present several transport problems; not only are they very dense, they are also highly corrosive. Palm oil accounts for about half of this, with the next top two commodities in this sector traded by sea being soybean oil and sunflower seed oil.

From a regional perspective, activity is focused on three main geographical areas. Europe is a mature, established producing region, contributing over one quarter of total chemical production. Much of Europe’s production serves domestic requirements. This manifests itself in increased demand for short-sea services, rather than deep-sea trades. North American (predominantly the U.S. manufacturers produce approximately one fifth of the major chemical products in the world. Although the majority of the U.S. production is for domestic use, particularly where gasoline additives are involved, the country also produces above domestic requirements, which results in significant export volumes.

In the U.S. the chemicals industry will be affected by the development of shale gas. Increased supplies of natural gas in the U.S. have already served to push down domestic gas prices and the fall in natural gas prices has had a beneficial impact on feedstock costs for the petrochemical industry. In particular, the cost of ethane has fallen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

significantly since 2011 thereby increasing the competiveness of the U.S. petrochemical industry within a global perspective. Accordingly, U.S. ethylene production costs have fallen to levels where the U.S. can now compete with Middle Eastern suppliers, and this opens up new opportunities to expand U.S. ethylene cracking capacity and subsequently petrochemical capacity. Ethylene cracker utilization in the U.S. has improved and prior to the recent fall in oil prices plans had been announced for a number of new petrochemical plants. Ethylene is a precursor for many of the organic chemicals shipped by sea (e.g. ethylene dichloride, ethylene glycol), so increased production would lead to increased availability of downstream chemical products for export from the U.S. Although the Middle East will continue to be the largest supplier of organic chemicals, the U.S. will be a major exporter of methanol and ethylene derivatives to the Far East market. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Iran’s new methanol projects may have a significant impact on global seaborne chemical trade.

Chemical Tanker Supply

Chemical tankers are characterized mainly by cargo containment systems which are technically more sophisticated than those found in conventional oil and product tankers. Since chemical tankers are often required to carry many products which are typically hazardous and easily contaminated, cargo segregation and containment is essential feature of these tankers.

Chemicals can only be carried in a tanker which has a current IMO Certificate of Fitness. The IMO regulates the carriage of chemicals by sea under the auspices of the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC), which classifies potentially dangerous cargoes into three categories, typically referred to as IMO 1, IMO 2 and IMO 3. Specific IMO conventions govern the requirements for particular tanks to be classified as each grading, which the pertinent features of each tank being the internal volume and its proximity to the sides and bottom of the vessel’s hull.

The carriage of 18 cargoes is restricted to IMO Type 1 classified vessels, while the majority of cargoes require IMO 2 vessels, including vegetable oils and palm oils. One concession to the IBC Code regulations is an allowance that IMO 3 tankers may carry other edible oils, an exemption introduced because of the tendency for such cargoes to be shipped in large bulk parcels. This often requires ships of up to MR size. Despite this exemption, these vessels are not `true’ chemical tankers in the general sense of the word, as they are not able to carry IMO 2 cargoes.

As well as defining the chemical tanker fleet in terms of IMO type, it is also possible to further define the fleet according to the degree of tank segregation, tank size and tank coating as detailed below.

Given the above, a broad definition of a chemical tanker is any vessel with a current IMO certificate of fitness with coated/and or stainless steel tanks and an average tank size of less than 3,000 cbm.

Overall, within the product and chemical tanker fleets it is important to recognise that there are a group of “swing” ships which can trade in either products or in chemicals, vegetable oils and fats. For example, a product tanker with IMO 2 certification may trade from time to time in easy chemicals such as caustic soda. Equally, an IMO 2 chemical tanker can in theory carry in products. The sector in which these “swing” ships trade will depend on a number of factors, with the main influences being the exact technical specifications of the ship; the last cargo carried; the state of the freight market in each sector and the operating policy of the ship owner/operator.

As of March 15, 2016, the world IMO 2 Coated and Stainless Steel tanker fleet consisted of 1,528 vessels with a combined capacity of 33.3 million dwt. The orderbook consisted of 189 vessels of 5.1 million dwt, or 15.3% of the existing fleet. In 2015, provisional data suggests that 16 chemical tankers totalling 0.4 million dwt were sent for demolition. In addition, chemical tankers are relatively complex vessel types to build and this increases the barriers to entry for shipyards and the pool of yards that owners are willing to consider is small.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

World Coated IMO 2 and Stainless Steel Tanker Fleet and Orderbook: March 15, 2016

Ship Type		Size (DWT)				Fleet								Orderbook – Jan 2016												Orderbook Delivery Schedule (No. Ships)
						Number				M Dwt				Number				M Dwt				% Fleet				2016				2017				2018				2019
Coated IMO 2			10,000+				927				20.3				47				1.4				6.9	%			27				13				4				3
Stainless Steel			10,000+				601				13.0				142				3.7				28.5	%			63				47				26				6
Total							1,528				33.3				189				5.1				15.3	%			90				60				30				9

Source: Drewry

The Chemical Tanker Freight Market

Some 50% of all chemical movements are covered by COAs, while the spot market covers 35% to 40%. The remainder is made up by other charter arrangements and cargoes moved in tonnage controlled by exporters or importers. In the chemical tanker freight market, the level of reporting of fixture information is far less widespread than for the oil tanker market. Furthermore, it is not always possible to establish a monthly series of rates for an individual cargo, on a given route, as fixing is often sporadic, or more often than not covered by contract business. For these reasons, the assessment of spot freight rate trends in the freight market is made by using a small number of routes where there is sufficient fixture volume to produce meaningful measurements. Following an increase in rates throughout 2010 and 2011 after the decline in 2009, freight rates on most major trade lanes declined during 2012 as market sentiment eroded. In 2013 spot rates on most routes strengthened and in 2014 rates continued to record small gains on the back of increased vessel demand. The provisional data for 2015 suggest that global seaborne chemical trade increased by 4.2% and rising demand for chemical tankers was reflected in improved TC rates.

Chemical Tanker Asset Values

As in other shipping sectors, chemical tanker sale and purchase values show a relationship to the charter market and newbuilding prices. Newbuilding prices are influenced by shipyard capacity and increased steel prices; secondhand vessel values may vary because of the country of construction and the level of outfitting of such vessels. Although there has been a relatively high level of activity in recent years, chemical vessels can be difficult to market to buyers due to complexity of operations in the chemical market and they may not always achieve their initial newbuilding premium. Newbuilding price trends in the chemical tanker sector are more difficult to track than MRs due to the lower volume of ordering and variation in specification. However, at the start of 2016 prices were generally 20% to 30% lower than the market peak in early 2008. Similarly, in the secondhand market, asset values in some cases have dropped by nearly 50% since 2008.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Government laws and regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our tankers. We are subject to international conventions, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of governmental, quasi-governmental and private organizations subject our tankers to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These organizations include local port authorities, national authorities, harbour masters, classification societies, flag state administrations, labor organizations, charterers, terminal operators and oil companies. Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for the operation of our tankers. Our failure to maintain necessary permits, licenses, certificates or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet, or lead to the invalidation or reduction of our insurance coverage.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, financial institutions, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the tanker industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to stricter environmental standards and these standards are expected to increase in stringency. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, and procedural compliance, together

TABLE OF CONTENTS

with continuous training of officers and crews to maintain compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly strict requirements. We cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these or future requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our tankers. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution, release of hazardous substances, loss of life or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could result in additional legislation, regulation or other requirements that could negatively affect our business, results of operations or financial position.

International Maritime Organization (“IMO”)

The IMO, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution, has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (“MARPOL”), which has been updated through various amendments. 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.

In 2012, the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (“MEPC”) adopted a resolution amending the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (the “IBC Code”). The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and SOLAS. These amendments, which entered into force in June 2014, 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. As of January 1, 2016 amendments to Annex I, the IBC Code, require that all chemical tankers must be fitted with approved stability instruments capable of verifying compliance with both intact and damage stability. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

In 2013, the MEPC adopted a resolution amending MARPOL Annex I Conditional Assessment Scheme (“CAS”). The amendments, which became effective on October 1, 2014, pertain to revising references to the inspections of bulk carriers and tankers after the 2011 International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (“ESP Code”), which provides for enhanced inspection programs, becomes mandatory. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

Air Emissions

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from ships. Effective May 2005 and as subsequently revised, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile organic compounds from cargo tanks, and the shipboard incineration from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000 of specific substances. “Deliberate emissions” are not limited to times when the ship is at sea; they can, for example, include discharges occurring in the course of the ship’s repair and maintenance. 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 known as Emission Control Areas (“ECAs”). Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems and adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. In October 2008, the IMO 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 will reduce air pollution from vessels by, among other things, (i) implementing a progressive reduction of sulfur oxide emissions from ships by reducing the global sulfur fuel cap initially to 3.50%, effective January 1, 2012, then progressively to 0.50%, effective globally from January 1, 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018; and (ii) establishing new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. The United States ratified the Annex VI amendments in October 2008, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), promulgated equivalent emissions standards in late 2009.

The United States and Canada requested the IMO designate the area extending 200 nautical miles from the Atlantic/Gulf and Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada and the Hawaiian Islands as ECAs under

TABLE OF CONTENTS

the MARPOL Annex VI amendments, which would subject ocean-going vessels in these areas to stringent emissions controls and cause us to incur additional costs. The North American ECA came into force on August 1, 2012. The North American ECA includes areas subject to the exclusive sovereignty of the United States and extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coasts of the United States, which area includes parts of the United States Gulf of Mexico. As of July 1, 2010, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 1.0%, which was further reduced to 0.1% on January 1, 2015. On January 1, 2014, the United States Caribbean Sea was also designated an ECA.

If other ECAs are approved by the IMO or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the EPA or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or operational changes or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

Safety Management System Requirements

The IMO also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 (“SOLAS”) and the International Convention on Load Lines (“LL Convention”), which impose a variety of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL Convention standards. The May 2012 SOLAS amendments that relate to the safe manning of vessels entered into force on January 1, 2014.

The IMO Legal Committee also adopted the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “LLMC”), which specifies limits of liability for loss of life or personal injury claims and property claims against ship-owners. The limits of liability are periodically amended to adjust to inflation. Amendments to the LLMC, which were adopted in April 2012, went into effect on June 8, 2015.

Our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements contained in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”), promulgated by the IMO under SOLAS. 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 safety and environmental protection policies setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. We rely upon the safety management system that has been developed for our vessels for compliance with the ISM Code.

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

Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the ship-owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in, or invalidation of, available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) and European Union (“EU”) authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in United States and EU ports, as the case may be.

Pollution Control and Liability Requirements

Many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as from time to time amended (“CLC”), although the United States is not a party. Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable, subject to certain affirmative defenses, for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil. The limits on liability outlined in the 1992 Protocol use the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights (“SDR”). The limits on liability have since been increased. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s personal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship owner’s personal act or omission or by intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading with states that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that of the CLC. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage of 2001 (the “Bunker Convention”), to impose strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention, which became effective on November 21, 2008, requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance, or other financial security, for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in a ship’s bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

In 1996, the IMO International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (“HNS”), was adopted and subsequently amended by the 2010 Protocol. If it enters into force, the HNS Convention will provide for compensation to be paid out to victims of accidents involving HNS, such as chemicals. The HNS Convention introduces strict liability for the ship-owner and covers pollution damage as well as the risks of fire and explosion, including loss of life or personal injury and damage to property. HNS are defined by reference to lists of substances included in various IMO Conventions and Codes and include oils, other liquid substances defined as noxious or dangerous, liquefied gases, liquid substances with a flashpoint not exceeding 60°C, dangerous, hazardous and harmful materials and substances carried in packaged form, solid bulk materials defined as possessing chemical hazards, and certain residues left by the previous carriage of HNS. The HNS Convention introduces strict liability for the ship-owner and a system of compulsory insurance and insurance certificates. However, the HNS Convention lacked the ratifications required to come into force. In April 2010, a consensus at the Diplomatic Conference convened by the IMO adopted the 2010 Protocol. Under the 2010 Protocol, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, compensation would first be sought from the ship-owner. The 2010 Protocol has not yet entered into effect. It will enter into force 18 months after the date on which certain consent and administrative requirements are satisfied. While a majority of the necessary number of states has indicated their consent to be bound by the 2010 Protocol, the required minimum has not been met.

In addition, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (“BWM Convention”) in February 2004. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. To date, the BWM Convention has not yet been ratified but proposals regarding its implementation have recently been submitted to the IMO. Many of the implementation dates in the BWM Convention have already passed, so that once the BWM Convention enters into force, the period of installation of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements would be extremely short, with several thousand ships a year needing to install ballast water management systems (“BWMS”). For this reason, on December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of the BWM Convention so that they are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This, in effect, makes all vessels constructed before the entry into force date “existing vessels” and allows for the installation of a BWMS on such vessels at the first renewal survey following entry into force of the convention. Furthermore, in October 2014, the MEPC met and adopted additional resolutions concerning the BWM Conventions implementation. Once mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and the costs of ballast water treatments may be material. However, many countries already regulate the discharge of the ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The United States, for example, requires vessels entering its waters from

TABLE OF CONTENTS

another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternative measure and to comply with certain reporting requirements. Although we do not believe that the costs of such compliance would be material, it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such requirements on our operations.

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

United States Regulations

The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and clean-up of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

Under OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels. OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:

OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages, which caps do not apply to direct clean-up costs. Effective December 21, 2015, the USCG adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,200 per gross ton or $18,796,800 for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation), and our fleet is entirely composed of vessels of this size class. CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for clean-up, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo or residue and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for any other vessel. These OPA and CERCLA limits of liability do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable United States federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities.

OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law.

OPA and the USCG also require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential liability under OPA and CERCLA. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing proof of insurance, a surety bond, self-insurance or a guaranty. We comply with the USCG’s financial responsibility regulations by providing a certificate of responsibility evidencing sufficient self-insurance.

OPA permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters; however, in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining tanker owners’ responsibilities under these laws.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA. For example, in February 2014 the United States Bureau of Ocean Energy Management proposed a rule increasing the limits of liability of damages for off-shore facilities under OPA based on inflation. On August 15, 2012, the Unites States Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) issued a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practices. In December 2015, the BSEE announced a new pilot inspection program for offshore facilities. Furthermore, in April 2015, it was announced that new regulations are expected to be imposed in the United States regarding offshore oil and gas drilling. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes.

We have and expect to maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage or if our insurance providers were to not respond, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The United States Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in United States 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 and remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In addition, many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than United States federal law.

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

The EPA regulates the discharge of ballast and bilge water and other substances in United States waters under the CWA. The EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels) to comply with a permit that regulates ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels (“VGP”). For a new vessel delivered to an owner or operator after September 19, 2009 to be covered by the VGP, the owner must submit a Notice of Intent at least 30 days before the vessel operates in United States waters. In March 2013 the EPA re-issued the VGP for another five years, and the new VGP took effect in December 2013. The VGP focuses on authorizing discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and the 2013 VGP contains ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in United States waters, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants.

USCG regulations adopted and proposed for adoption under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”), also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in United States waters, which require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures, or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering United States waters. The USCG must approve any technology before it is placed on a vessel, but has not yet approved the technology necessary for vessels to meet the foregoing standards.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

It should also be noted that in October 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that directed the EPA to redraft the sections of the 2013 VGP that address ballast water. However, the Second Circuit stated that 2013 VGP will remains in effect until the EPA issues a new VGP. It presently remains unclear how the ballast water requirements set forth by the EPA, the USCG, and IMO BWM Convention, some of which are in effect and some which are pending, will co-exist.

Compliance with the EPA and the USCG regulations could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering United States waters.

European Union Regulations

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

From January 2011, new EU legislation came into effect which bans from EU member states’ waters manifestly sub-standard vessels (vessels which have been detained twice by EU port authorities) and created obligations on EU member port states to inspect vessels using EU member ports annually, as well as increasing surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment. The legislation also gave the EU port authorities great powers and control over classification societies, including the ability to request a suspension or revocation of any negligent societies continuing to have a right to retain their classification authority. In addition, new legislation also came into effect in January 2011 which introduced a ranking system displaying shipping companies which had low safety records. These records would be published on a public website updated daily. This ranking would be based upon the results of technical inspections carried out vessels and those shipping companies with positive safety records would be rewarded by being subjected to fewer inspections and in turn those shipping companies with safety or technical failings or shortcomings would be subjected to more frequent inspections.

The EU has adopted new low sulphur fuel legislation which came into effect from January 2015. This requires vessels to only burn fuel with a sulphur content which does not exceed 0.1% whilst they are in the territorial waters of EU member states, or EU exclusive economic zones, pollution control zones, or Sulphur Oxide Emissions Control Areas (“SOx Emissions Control Areas”). The IMO designated ECAs in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, and similar regulations also came into effect in January 2015, as discussed above under “International Maritime Organization — Air Emissions.”

Recently, the EU has adopted regulations in relation to recycling and management of hazardous materials on all ships. Parts of such regulations concerning carrying statements of compliance and an inventory of hazardous materials, became effective starting on December 31, 2015 and EU newbuilds must be complaint by December 31, 2018 (certain provisions also come into effect between December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2020 respectively). These recycling regulations apply to any vessels which are flagged under an EU member. None of our vessels are flagged under an EU member state. However, even though a vessel is flagged in a country outside of the EU, the vessel will still have to keep a record on-board an inventory of any hazardous materials on vessels and be able to submit to the relevant authorities a copy of a statement of compliance verifying this inventory.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which we refer to as the Kyoto Protocol, entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which set emission reduction targets through 2012 and has been extended with new targets through 2020 pending negotiation of a new climate change treaty that would take effect in 2020. Restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the United States and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord. The 2015 United Nations Convention on Climate Change Conference in Parties did not result in an agreement that directly limited greenhouse gas emissions from ships.

As of January 1, 2013, all new ships must comply with two new sets of mandatory requirements to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships, which were adopted by MEPC in July 2011. Currently operating ships are required to develop SEEMPs and minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile, outlined in the EEDI, apply to new ships. These requirements could cause us to incur additional compliance costs.

In 2015, the European Parliament and Council of Ministers adopted a regulation that large ships (over 5,000 gross tons) calling at EU ports from January 2018 collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information requiring. In the United States, the EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and safety and has adopted regulation to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and large stationary sources. The EPA enforces both the United States Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and the international standards found in Annex VI of MARPOL concerning marine diesel engines, their emissions, and the sulphur content in marine fuel. Other federal and state regulations relating to the control of greenhouse gas emissions may follow, including the climate change initiatives that are being considered in the U.S. Congress. In addition, the IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, including market-based instruments. Any passage of climate change legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the EU, United States, IMO or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures, including capital expenditures to upgrade our vessels, that we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Even in the absence of climate control legislation and regulations, our businesses may be materially affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or more intense weather events.

International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization (“ILO”) is a specialized agency of the UN with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (“MLC 2006”). A Maritime Labour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. Amendments to the MLC 2006 were adopted in 2014 and more amendments were proposed in 2016. The MLC 2006 entered into force on August 20, 2013. The MLC 2006 requires us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the United States Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the “MTSA”) came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The regulations also impose requirements on certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”). The ISPS Code is designed to protect ports and international shipping 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. Among the various requirements are:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

The USCG regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels that have on board, as of July 1, 2004, a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We, together with our technical managers, have implemented the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every oceangoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in-class,” signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of International Association of Classification Standards and complies, as appointed, with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Vessels have their underwater parts inspected every 30 to 36 months. Depending on the vessel’s classification status and constructed notation and other factors, this inspection can often be done afloat with minimal disruption to the vessel’s commercial deployment. However, vessels are required to be drydocked, meaning physically removed from the water, for inspection and related repairs at least once every five years from delivery. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a condition of class or recommendation which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as “in-class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (“IACS”). All our vessels are certified as being “in-class” by American Bureau of Shipping and Lloyds Register. In December 2013 the IACS adopted new harmonized Common Rules, which apply to oil tankers and bulk carriers to be constructed on or after July 1, 2015. All new and second-hand vessels that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery to us. If the vessel is not certified on the scheduled date of closing, we have no obligation to take delivery of the vessel.

In addition to the classification inspections, many of our customers regularly inspect our vessels as a precondition to chartering them for voyages. We believe that our well-maintained, high-quality vessels provide us with a competitive advantage in the current environment of increasing regulation and customer emphasis on quality.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, labor strikes and acts of God. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental incidents, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which in certain circumstances imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the U.S. exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, and other regulations have made liability insurance more expensive for vessel owners and operators trading in the U.S. market and elsewhere. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, 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 reasonable rates.

Marine and War Risks Insurance

We have in force marine and war risks insurance for all of our vessels. Our marine hull and machinery insurance covers risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from collision, fire, grounding, engine breakdown and other insured named perils up to an agreed amount per vessel. Our war risks insurance covers the risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from confiscation, seizure, capture, vandalism, sabotage, and other war-related named perils. We have also arranged coverage for increased value for each vessel. Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able to recover amounts in excess of those recoverable under the hull and machinery policy in order to compensate for additional costs associated with replacement of the vessel. Each vessel is covered up to at least its fair market value at the time of the insurance attachment and is subject to a fixed deductible per accident or occurrence, but excluding actual or constructive total loss.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

We have in force marine and war risks insurance for all of our vessels. Our marine hull and machinery insurance covers risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from collision, fire, grounding,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

engine breakdown and other insured named perils up to an agreed amount per vessel. Our war risks insurance covers the risks of particular average and actual or constructive total loss from confiscation, seizure, capture, vandalism, sabotage, and other war-related named perils. We have also arranged coverage for increased value for each vessel. Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able to recover amounts in excess of those recoverable under the hull and machinery policy in order to compensate for additional costs associated with replacement of the vessel. Each vessel is covered up to at least its fair market value at the time of the insurance attachment and is subject to a fixed deductible per accident or occurrence, but excluding actual or constructive total loss.

Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. We are a member of a P&I Club that is a member of the International Group of P&I Clubs (“International Group”). The P&I Clubs that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities.

Although the P&I Clubs compete with each other for business, they have found it beneficial to pool their larger risks under the auspices of the International Group. This pooling is regulated by a contractual agreement which defines the risks that are to be pooled and exactly how these risks are to be shared by the participating P&I Clubs. The pool provides a mechanism for sharing all claims in excess of $10.0 million up to approximately $7.5 billion. We are subject to calls payable to the associations based on its claim record, as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the pool of P&I Clubs comprising the International Group.

Exchange Controls

Under Marshall Islands law, there are currently no restrictions on the export or import of capital, including foreign exchange controls or restrictions that affect the remittance of dividends, interest or other payments to non-resident holders of our common shares.

C. Organizational Structure

Please see Item 4.A (“Information on the Company — History and Development of the Company”) in this Annual Report for information about our organizational structure. We have 45 wholly owned subsidiaries, a list of which is included as Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report.

D. Property, Plant and Equipment

Other than our vessels, a description of which is included in Item 4.B “Business Overview — Fleet List” of this Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference, we own no material property. We have entered into a lease with a third party for our office space in Cork, Ireland. The lease commenced on March 2016 and is for a period of 15 years, with an option to terminate the lease after ten years. We have entered into a lease which commenced on January, 2016 with a third party for office space at Hamilton, Bermuda. This lease is for a period of one year, with an option for three further terms of one year each. We entered into a corporate services agreement for a temporary office space in Singapore which commenced on September 2015 for a period of one year. Average aggregate payments under these leases are approximately $328,959 per annum.

As of March 15, 2016, all of our 24 vessels are subject to liens relating to our credit facilities.

Item 4.A Unresolved Staff Comments

None

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements, accompanying notes thereto and other financial information, appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. The consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The consolidated financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

General

We are Ardmore Shipping Corporation, a company incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. We provide seaborne transportation of petroleum products and chemicals worldwide to oil majors, national oil companies, oil and chemical traders, and chemical companies, with our modern, fuel-efficient fleet of mid-size product and chemical tankers.

We are commercially independent as we have no blanket employment arrangements with third-party or related-party commercial managers. We market our services directly to our broad range of customers and commercial pool operators.

Our Charters

We generate revenues by charging customers for the transportation of their petroleum or chemical products using our vessels. Historically, these services generally have been provided under the following basic types of contractual arrangements:

The table below illustrates the primary distinctions among these types of charters and contracts.

Time Charter

Commercial Pool

Spot Charter

Typical contract length

1 – 5 years

Indefinite

Single voyage

Hire rate basis(1)

Daily

Varies (daily rate reported)

Varies

Voyage expenses(2)

Charterer pays

Pool pays

We pay

Vessel operating expenses(3)

We pay

We pay

We pay

Off-hire(4)

We pay

We pay

We pay

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Operating Results

Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts

We use a variety of financial and operational terms and concepts. These include the following:

Vessel Revenues.  Vessel revenues primarily include revenues from time charters, spot charters and commercial pooling arrangements. Vessel revenues are affected by hire rates and the number of days a vessel operates. Vessel revenues are also affected by the mix of business among vessels on time charter, spot charter and vessels in pools. Revenues from vessels in pools or employed in the spot market are more volatile, as they are typically tied to prevailing market rates.

Voyage Expenses.  Voyage expenses are all expenses related to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls and agency fees. These expenses are subtracted from shipping revenues to calculate TCE rates (as defined below).

Vessel Operating Expenses.  We are responsible for vessel operating expenses, which include crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils, communication expenses, and technical management fees. The largest components of our vessel operating expenses are generally crews and repairs and maintenance. Expenses for repairs and maintenance tend to fluctuate from period to period because most repairs and maintenance typically occur during periodic drydockings. We expect these expenses to increase as our fleet matures and to the extent that it expands.

Drydocking.  We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for inspection, and any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements. Generally, each vessel is drydocked every 30 to 60 months. The capitalized costs of drydockings for a given vessel are depreciated on a straight line basis to the next scheduled drydocking of the vessel.

Depreciation.  Depreciation expense typically consists of charges related to the depreciation of the historical cost of our fleet (less an estimated residual value) over the estimated useful lives of the vessels and charges relating to the depreciation of upgrades to vessels, which are depreciated over the shorter of the vessel’s remaining useful life or the life of the renewal or upgrade. We depreciate our vessels over an estimated useful life of 25 years on a straight line basis to their residual scrap value. The rate we use to calculate the residual scrap value is $300 per lightweight ton.

Amortization of Deferred Drydock Expenditure.  Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure relates to the amortization of drydocking expenditures over the estimated number of years to the next scheduled drydocking.

Time Charter Equivalent (“TCE”) Rates.  TCE rates are a standard industry measure of the average daily revenue performance of a vessel. The TCE rate achieved on a given voyage is expressed in U.S. dollars per day and is generally calculated by subtracting voyage expenses from voyage revenues and dividing the net amount (time charter equivalent revenues) by the number of days in the period. In the case of time charters or commercial pool employment, the TCE will generally equal the charter rate or daily pool rate.

Revenue Days.  Revenue days are the total number of calendar days our vessels were in our possession during a period, less the total number of off-hire days during the period generally associated with repairs or drydockings. Idle days, which are days when a vessel is available to earn revenue, yet is not employed, are included in revenue days. We use revenue days to show changes in net voyage revenues between periods.

Operating Days.  Operating days are the number of days our vessels are in operation during the year. Where a vessel is under our ownership for a full year, operating days will generally equal calendar days. Days when a vessel is in drydock are included in the calculation of operating days, as we incur operating expenses while in drydock.

Net Voyage Revenues.  Net voyage revenues represent revenues less voyage expenses. Because the amount of voyage expenses we incur for a particular charter depends upon the type of the charter, we use net voyage revenues to improve the comparability between periods of reported revenues that are generated by the different types of charters and contracts. We principally use net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, because it provides more meaningful information to us about the deployment of our vessels and their performance than revenues, the most directly comparable financial measure under U.S. GAAP.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Commercial Pools.  To increase vessel utilization and thereby revenues, we participate in commercial pools with other ship owners of similar modern, well-maintained vessels. By operating a large number of vessels as an integrated transportation system, commercial pools offer customers greater flexibility while achieving scheduling efficiencies. Pools typically employ experienced commercial charterers and operators who have close working relationships with customers and brokers, while technical management is performed by each ship owner. Pools negotiate charters with customers primarily in the spot market. The size and scope of these pools enhance utilization rates for pool vessels by securing backhaul voyages and contracts of affreightment, which may generate higher effective TCE revenues than otherwise might be obtainable in the spot market, while providing a higher level of service offerings to customers.

Factors You Should Consider When Evaluating Our Results

We face a number of risks associated with our business and industry and must overcome a variety of challenges to utilize our strengths and implement our business strategy. These risks include, among others: the highly cyclical tanker industry; partial dependence on spot charters; fluctuating charter values; changing economic, political and governmental conditions affecting our industry and business; material changes in applicable laws and regulations; level of performance by counterparties, particularly charterers; acquisitions and dispositions; increased operating expenses; increased capital expenditures; taxes; maintaining customer relationships; maintaining sufficient liquidity; financing availability and terms; and management turnover.

Ship-owners base economic decisions regarding the deployment of their vessels upon actual and anticipated TCE rates, and industry analysts typically measure rates in terms of TCE rates. This is because under time charters the customer typically pays the voyage expenses, while under voyage charters, also known as spot market charters, the shipowner usually pays the voyage expenses. Accordingly, the discussion of revenue below focuses on TCE rates where applicable.

Recent Fleet Growth

Our current fleet consists of 24 double-hulled product and chemical tankers all of which are in operation. We acquired ten of our vessels as second-hand vessels, all of which we have upgraded to increase efficiency and improve performance. In 2013, 2014, and 2015 we paid an aggregate of $144.6 million, $209.7 million, and $232.9 million respectively, for vessel acquisitions, vessel equipment and newbuilding orders.

As of December 31, 2010, our operating fleet consisted of four vessels. During 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, we acquired or took delivery of two, none, two, six and 10 vessels, respectively.

In 2015, we took delivery of the following newbuilding product and chemical tankers:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Operating Results

The following tables present our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Statement of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014

		Year Ended
INCOME STATEMENT DATA		Dec. 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Variance				Variance (%)
REVENUE
Revenue		$	157,882,259				67,326,634				90,555,625				135	%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Commissions and voyage related costs			30,137,173				7,004,045				(23,133,128	)			(330	)%
Vessel operating expenses			46,416,510				29,447,876				(16,968,634	)			(58	)%
Depreciation			24,157,022				14,854,885				(9,302,137	)			(63	)%
Amortization of deferred dry dock expenditure			2,120,974				2,031,100				(89,874	)			(4	)%
General and administrative expenses			10,748,622				8,178,666				(2,569,956	)			(31	)%
Total operating expenses			113,580,301				61,516,572				(52,063,729	)			(85	)%
Profit/(loss) from operations			44,301,958				5,810,062				38,491,896				663	%
Interest expense and finance costs			(12,282,704	)			(4,119,283	)			(8,163,421	)			(198	)%
Interest income			15,571				16,444				(873	)			(5	)%
Profit/(loss) before taxes			32,034,825				1,707,223				30,327,602				1,776	%
Income tax			(79,860	)			(46,749	)			(33,111	)			(71	)%
Net profit/(loss)		$	31,954,965				1,660,474				30,294,491				1,824	%

Revenue.  Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $157.9 million, an increase of $90.6 million from $67.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase is due to an increase in the average number of owned vessels to 19.69 for 2015 from 12.1 for 2014, improving market conditions and an increase in earnings per day generated by vessels employed in the spot market. We had eight vessels and three vessels employed under direct spot chartering arrangements as at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As discussed above, under direct spot chartering arrangements, revenue is recognized on a gross charter basis, while under time chartering and pooling arrangements, the charterer typically pays voyage expenses and revenue is recognized on a net basis.

Commissions and voyage related costs.  Commissions and voyage related costs were $30.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to $7.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. This increase is primarily due to 2,781 additional revenue days in 2015 as compared to 2014, in line with the additional vessel deliveries following December 31, 2014. As discussed above, under a direct spot chartering arrangement, all voyage expenses are borne by us as opposed to the charterer, while under time chartering and pooling arrangements, the charterer typically pays voyage expenses.

TCE rate.  The TCE rate for our fleet was $18,309 per day for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $3,916 per day from $14,393 per day for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Vessel operating expenses.  Vessel operating expenses were $46.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $17.0 million from $29.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. This increase is primarily due to an increase in the number of vessels in operation for 2015. Due to the nature of this expenditure, vessel operating expenses are prone to fluctuations between periods. Average operating costs per vessel per day, including technical management fees, were $6,333 for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to $6,556 for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Depreciation.  Depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $24.2 million, an increase of $9.3 million from $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase is due to an increase in the average number of owned vessels to 19.69 for 2015 from 12.1 for 2014.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Amortization of deferred dry dock expenditure.  Amortization of deferred dry dock expenditure for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $2.1 million, as compared to $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. This increase is due to the timing of scheduled drydockings occurring across the fleet. The capitalized costs of drydockings for a given vessel are depreciated on a straight line basis to the next scheduled drydocking of the vessel.

General and administrative expenses.  General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 were $10.7 million, as compared to $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase reflects additional costs associated with operating a growing fleet, along with general and administrative expenses being prone to fluctuations between periods.

Interest expense and finance costs.  Interest expense and finance costs (which include loan interest, capital lease interest, amortization of deferred financing fees and are net of capitalized interest) for the year ended December 31, 2015 were $12.3 million, as compared to $4.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. Cash interest expense increased by $5.9 million to $13.0 million for 2015 from $7.1 million for 2014. This was the result of an increase in the average debt balance following the delivery of ten vessels since December 31, 2015. Capitalized interest, which relates to vessels under construction, amounted to $2.4 million for 2015, as compared to $3.9 million for 2014. Amortization of deferred financing charges for 2015 was $1.7 million, compared to $0.9 million for 2014.

Statement of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013

		Year Ended
INCOME STATEMENT DATA		Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013				Variance				Variance (%)
REVENUE
Revenue		$	67,326,634				35,867,356				31,459,278				87.7	%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Commissions and voyage related costs			7,004,045				2,523,842				(4,480,203	)			(177.5	)%
Vessel operating expenses			29,447,876				18,215,487				(11,232,389	)			(61.7	)%
Depreciation			14,854,885				8,388,208				(6,466,677	)			(77.1	)%
Amortization of deferred dry dock expenditure			2,031,100				1,420,814				(610,286	)			(43.0	)%
General and administrative expenses			8,178,666				5,669,935				(2,508,731	)			(44.2	)%
Total operating expenses			61,516,572				36,218,286				(25,298,286	)			(69.8	)%
Profit/(loss) from operations			5,810,062				(350,930	)			6,160,992				1775.6	%
Interest expense and finance costs			(4,119,283	)			(3,464,006	)			(655,277	)			(18.9	)%
Interest income			16,444				6,059				10,385				171.4	%
Profit/(loss) before taxes			1,707,223				(3,808,877	)			5,516,100				144.8	%
Income tax			(46,749	)			(33,726	)			(13,023	)			(38.6	)%
Net profit/(loss)		$	1,660,474				(3,842,603	)			5,503,077				143.2	%

Revenue.  Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $67.3 million, an increase of $31.4 million from $35.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Revenue days on owned vessels increased by 1,631 days from 2,649 days for the year ended December 31, 2013 to 4,280 days for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase primarily relates to the deliveries of six vessels (the Ardmore Seavantage, Ardmore Seamariner, Ardmore Seavanguard, Ardmore Endeavour, Ardmore Sealifter and Ardmore Sealeader) which commenced trading on January 18, February 1, February 17, June 25, July 22 and August 21, 2014 respectively. In addition, three vessels (the Ardmore Endeavour, Ardmore Sealifter and Ardmore Sealeader) were employed under a spot chartering arrangement, where voyage expenses are borne directly by us and, thus, revenue is recognized on a gross freight basis. Fleet TCE rates increased in the year ended December 31, 2014, to $14,393 per day as compared to $12,850 per day for the year ended December 31, 2013.

TCE rate.  The TCE rate for our fleet was $14,393 per day for the year ended 31 December, 2014, an increase of $1,543 per day from $12,850 for the year ended 31 December, 2014.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Commissions and voyage related costs.  Commissions and voyage related costs for the year ended December 31, 2014 were $7.0 million, an increase of $4.5 million from $2.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. This increase is due to additional revenue days as a result of the vessel deliveries in 2014. The employment of three recently acquired vessels under spot chartering arrangement also increased the commissions and voyage related costs. Under a spot chartering arrangement, all voyage expenses are borne by us, as opposed to the charterer.

Vessel operating expenses.  Vessel operating costs were $29.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, an increase of $11.2 million from $18.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Vessel operating expenses are based primarily on the number of operating days in the period. Operating days were 4,402 days for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to 2,703 days for the year ended December 31, 2013. Fleet operating costs per day, including technical management fees, were $6,556 for the year ended December 31, 2014, as compared to $6,531 for the year ended December 31, 2013

Depreciation.  Depreciation expense was $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, an increase of $6.5 million from $8.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. This increase is a result of the vessel deliveries in 2014, with the average number of owned vessels for the year ended December 31, 2014 being 12.1 as compared to 7.4 for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure.  Amortization of deferred drydock expenditure for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $2.0 million, an increase of $0.6 million from $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. This increase is primarily due to scheduled drydockings occurring across the fleet in 2014.

General and administrative expenses.  General and administrative expenses were $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, as compared to $5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. This increase was primarily the result of an increase in non-cash, share based compensation expense included in general and administrative expenses from $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 to $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, and increased expenses as a consequence of being a public company for a full year in 2014. A significant portion of our general and administrative costs are incurred in Euros. These expenses are susceptible to foreign currency movements between U.S. dollars and Euros. However, we do not expect the impact of any fluctuations in foreign currency to have a material impact on us.

Interest expense.  Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $4.1 million as compared to $3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Interest costs on senior debt were $4.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, an increase of $1.8 million from $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Interest incurred on capital leases was $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 as compared to $1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Amortized deferred finance fees for the year ended December 31, 2014 were $0.9 million, as compared to $0.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, primarily due to higher borrowing amounts related to additional vessels.

We capitalize interest costs that are attributable to amounts advanced for vessels under construction. Where a loan is directly attributable to vessels under construction, we capitalize this interest in full. Where we have not financed the advances for vessels under construction with a loan, we attribute capitalized interest to these amounts based on the weighted average interest rate for the period (“capitalized interest”). Total capitalized interest was $3.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, an increase of $1.8 million from $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Capitalized interest increased in 2014 in line with deposits paid for Ardmore’s current vessels on order.

B. Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our primary sources of liquidity are cash and cash equivalents, cash flows provided by our operations, our undrawn credit facilities and capital raised through financing transactions. As at December 31, 2015, our total cash and cash equivalents were $40.1 million, a decrease of $19.8 million from $59.9 million as at December 31, 2014, following payments made for vessels under construction. We believe that our working capital, together with expected cash flows from operations and availability under credit facilities, will be sufficient for our present requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our short-term liquidity requirements include the payment of operating expenses, drydocking expenditures, debt servicing costs, dividends on our shares of common stock, scheduled repayments of long-term debt, as well as funding our other working capital requirements. Our short-term and spot charters, including participating in spot charter pooling arrangements, contribute to the volatility of our net operating cash flow, and thus our ability to generate sufficient cash flows to meet our short-term liquidity needs. Historically, the tanker industry has been cyclical, experiencing volatility in profitability and asset values resulting from changes in the supply of, and demand for, vessel capacity. In addition, tanker spot markets historically have exhibited seasonal variations in charter rates. Tanker spot markets are typically stronger in the winter months as a result of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere and unpredictable weather patterns that tend to disrupt vessel scheduling. Time charters provide contracted revenue that reduces the volatility (as rates can fluctuate within months) and seasonality from revenue generated by vessels that operate in the spot market. Commercial pools reduce revenue volatility because they aggregate the revenues and expenses of all pool participants and distribute net earnings to the participants based on an agreed upon formula. Spot charters preserve flexibility to take advantage of increasing rate environments, but also expose the ship-owner to decreasing rate environments.

Our long-term capital needs are primarily for capital expenditures and debt repayment. Generally, we expect that our long-term sources of funds will be cash balances, long-term bank borrowings and other debt or equity financings. We expect that we will rely upon internal and external financing sources, including, cash balances, bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures.

Our credit facilities and capital leases are described in Notes 2 (“Debt”) and 3 (“Capital leases”) to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 18 of this Annual Report. Our financing facilities contain covenants and other restrictions we believe are typical of debt financing collateralized by vessels, including those that restrict the relevant subsidiaries from incurring or guaranteeing additional indebtedness, granting certain liens, and selling, transferring, assigning or conveying assets. Our financing facilities do not impose a restriction on dividends, distributions, or returns of capital unless an event of default has occurred, is continuing or will result from such payment. Our financing facilities require us to maintain various financial covenants. Should we not meet these financial covenants or other covenants, the lenders may declare our obligations under the agreements immediately due and payable, and terminate any further loan commitments, which would significantly affect our short-term liquidity requirements. As at December 31, 2015, we were in compliance with all covenants relating to our financing facilities.

Cash Flow Data for the Years Ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

		For the years ended
CASH FLOW DATA		Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014				Dec 31, 2013
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	37,659,686				12,421,127				8,120,173
Net cash used in investing activities			(232,849,734	)			(209,741,529	)			(144,637,558	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		$	175,419,834				200,339,153				178,044,107

Cash provided by operating activities

Changes in net cash flow from operating activities primarily reflect changes in fleet size, fluctuations in spot tanker rates, changes in interest rates, fluctuations in working capital balances, and the timing and the amount of drydocking expenditures, repairs and maintenance activities. Our exposure to the highly cyclical spot tanker market and the growth of our fleet have contributed significantly to historical fluctuations in operating cash flows.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, cash flow provided by operating activities was $37.7 million. Net profit (after adding back depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items) was an inflow of $61.4 million. Changes in operating assets and liabilities resulted in an outflow of $20.4 million and drydock payments were $3.3 million.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For the year ended December 31, 2014, cash flow provided by operating activities was $12.4 million. Net profit (after adding back depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items) resulted in a cash inflow of $20.8 million. Changes in operating assets and liabilities resulted in an outflow of $3.5 million and drydock payments were $4.9 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, cash flow provided by operating activities was $8.1 million. Net profit (after adding back depreciation, amortization and other non-cash items) resulted in a cash inflow of $7.3 million. Changes in operating assets and liabilities contributed an inflow of $1.1 million and drydock payments were $0.3 million.

Cash used by investing activities

For the year ended December 31, 2015, net cash used in investing activities was $232.9 million. Payments for the completion of vessels under construction, along with vessel equipment, were $232.5 million for 2015. Payments for office equipment, and fixtures and fittings during the year were $0.4 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, net cash used in investing activities was $209.7 million. Investment in second-hand vessels, the completion of vessels and vessel equipment was $152.2 million. Payments made during the year for vessels still under construction at December 31, 2014 were $57.5 million. In addition to these outflows, we spent $0.06 million on other assets for the year ended December 31, 2014, which primarily relates to expenditure on IT infrastructure and further office fit out.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, net cash used in investing activities was $144.6 million. Investment in second-hand vessels, the completion of vessels and vessel equipment was $63.5 million. Payments for vessels still under construction at December 31, 2013 were $81.1 million, due to new orders placed within the year. In addition to these outflows, we spent $0.07 million on other assets for the year ended December 31, 2013, which primarily relates to expenditure on IT infrastructure and further office fit out.

Cash provided by financing activities

For the year ended December 31, 2015, the net cash provided by financing activities was $175.4 million. Drawdowns of long-term debt amounted to $216.5 million and repayments of debt amounted to $24.8 million. Total principal repayments of the capital lease arrangement were $1.7 million. We also incurred payments of $1.6 million relating to deferred finance charges for loan facilities, and for commitment fees payable in respect of other financing committed for vessels which were under construction. Quarterly cash dividends paid were $13 million for the period.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, the net cash provided by financing activities was $200.3 million. Drawdowns of senior debt totalled $128.6 million and repayments of senior debt totalled $12.8 million. Repayments of the capital lease arrangement amounted to $1.6 million in 2014. We also incurred $5.7 million of deferred finance charges for senior loan facilities, along with commitment fees payable in respect of financing committed for vessels under construction. Gross proceeds from our equity public offering in March 2014 were $108.7 million, which was partially offset by $6 million of offering related expenses. Quarterly dividends paid during 2014 were $9.6 million. Payments for repurchases of our common shares pursuant to our share repurchase plan were $1.3 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the net cash provided by financing activities was $178.0 million. Drawdowns of senior debt totalled $47.0 million and repayments of senior debt totalled $25.3 million. Total proceeds and repayments of a capital lease arrangement amounted to $31.5 million and $1.1 million respectively. We also incurred $1.3 million of deferred finance charges for a senior loan facility that had not been drawn down at year end, along with commitment fees payable in respect of other financing committed for vessels under construction. Gross proceeds from our IPO amounted to $140.0 million, which was offset by $11.6 million of IPO related expenses. We paid a total dividend on November 20, 2013 of $1.2 million with respect to the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Capital Expenditures

Drydock

Three of our vessels completed drydock surveys in 2015. The drydocking schedule for our vessels that were in operation as of December 31, 2015 is as follows:

		For the years ended December 31
		2016				2017				2018				2019
Number of vessels in drydock (excluding in-water surveys)			3				3				5				5

We will continue to seek to stagger drydockings across the fleet. As our fleet matures and expands, our drydock expenses are likely to increase. Ongoing costs for compliance with environmental regulations and society classification surveys are a component of our vessel operating expenses.

Newbuildings

We currently have no newbuildings on order. However, our growth strategy contemplates expansion of our fleet through vessel acquisitions and newbuildings.

Upgrades

We intend to continue our investment program for vessel upgrades, primarily following acquisition of second-hand vessels, where feasible to maintain operational efficiency, optimum commercial performance and preservation of asset value.

Dividends

On each of February 18, May 15 and August 14, 2015 we paid a cash dividend of $0.10 per share of our common stock for the quarters ended December 31, 2014, March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively.

On April 2, 2015, we introduced our Dividend Reinvestment Plan. The plan allows existing shareholders to purchase additional common shares by automatically reinvesting all or any portion of the cash dividends paid on common shares held by the plan participant.

On September 8, 2015, we announced a change to our dividend policy to a constant payout ratio policy. Under the new policy we expect to pay out as dividends on a quarterly basis 60% of Earnings from Continuing Operations (which represents our earnings per share reported under U.S. GAAP as adjusted for unrealized and realized gains and losses and extraordinary items).

On October 27, 2015, Ardmore’s Board of Directors announced a cash dividend of $0.31 per share for the quarter ended September 30, 2015. The dividend was paid on November 16, 2015 to all shareholders of record on November 6, 2015.

On February 3, 2016, Ardmore’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.13 per share for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The dividend was payable on February 29, 2016 to all shareholders of record on February 16, 2016.

Share Repurchase Plan

In November 2014, we announced that our board of directors approved a share repurchase plan with authorization to buy up to $20 million of shares of the Company’s common stock for up to three years. We may repurchase these shares in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions, at times and prices that are considered to be appropriate by us, but we are not obligated under the terms of the program to repurchase any shares, and at any time we may suspend, delay or discontinue the share repurchase plan.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, we repurchased none of our shares of common stock. During the quarter ended March 31, 2016, we repurchased 366,347 shares under our repurchase plan, at a weighted-average price of $8.20 per share (including fees and commission of $0.03 per share) for a total of $3,004,921 million.

C. Research and Development, Patent and Licences, etc.

Not applicable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D. Trend Information

Our results of operations depend primarily on the charter hire rates that we are able to realize for our vessels, which primarily depend on the demand and supply dynamics characterizing the tanker market at any given time. The oil tanker industry has been highly cyclical in recent years, experiencing volatility in charter hire rates and vessel values resulting from changes in the supply of and demand for crude oil and tanker capacity. For other trends affecting our business, please see the other discussions above in this “Item 4 — Information on the Company — Business Overview — The International Product and Chemical Tanker Industry” and “Item 5 — Operating and Financial Review and Prospects”.

E. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have no off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future material effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

F. Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations

The following table sets forth our obligations on vessel finance and certain other obligations as at December 31, 2015. As of that date, we had no such obligations or commitments due after the year ending December 31, 2021.

		FY 2016				FY 2017 – 2019				FY 2020 – 2022				Total
Debt		$	29,137,825			$	106,631,299			$	260,695,503			$	396,464,627
Capital lease			27,097,348				—				—				27,097,348
Interest expense(1)			11,812,037				30,726,738				16,490,443				59,029,218
Loan commitment fees			204,000				—				—				204,000
Office space			321,641				1,026,298				779,591				2,127,530
		$	68,572,851				138,384,335				277,965,539				484,922,724

Critical Accounting Estimates

In the application of our accounting policies, which are prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP, we are required to make judgments, estimates and assumptions about the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities, and revenues and expenses that are not readily apparent from other sources. The estimates and associated assumptions are based on historical experience and other factors that are considered to be relevant. Actual results may differ from these estimates. The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognized in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period, or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.

The significant judgments and estimates are as follows:

Revenue recognition.  If a time charter agreement exists, the rate is fixed or determinable, service is provided and collection of the related revenue is reasonably assured, then we recognize revenues over the term of the time charter. We do not recognize revenue during days the vessel is offhire. Where the time charter contains a profit or loss sharing arrangement, the profit or loss is recognized based on amounts earned or incurred as of the reporting date.

Revenues and voyage expenses of our vessels operating in commercial pooling arrangements are pooled with the revenues and voyage expenses of other pool participants. The resulting net pool revenues, calculated on the time charter equivalent basis, are allocated to the pool participants according to an agreed upon formula. The formulas used to allocate net pool revenues vary among different pools but generally allocate revenues to pool participants on the basis of the number of days a vessel operates in the pool with weighted adjustments made to reflect the vessels’ differing capacities and performance capabilities. We account for our vessels’ share

TABLE OF CONTENTS

of net pool revenue on the allocated time charter equivalent on a monthly basis. Net pool revenues due from the pool are included in trade receivables.

Revenues from voyage charters on the spot market are recognized ratably on a discharge-to-discharge basis (i.e. from when cargo is discharged (unloaded) at the end of one voyage to when it is discharged after the next voyage), provided an agreed irrevocable charter between us and the charterer is in existence, the charter rate is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. Revenue under voyage charters is not recognized until a charter has been agreed, even if the vessel has discharged its previous cargo and is proceeding to an anticipated port of loading.

Shares-Based Compensation.  We grant share-based payment awards, such as restricted stock units, as incentive-based compensation to certain employees. We granted Stock Appreciation Rights (“SARs”) to certain employees and officers in August 2013, March 2014, June 2014 and March 2015. We measure the cost of equity-settled transactions with employees by reference to the fair value of the equity instruments at the date on which they are granted, which we calculate according to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic No. 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”). Estimating fair value for share-based payment transactions requires determining the most appropriate valuation model, which is dependent on the terms and conditions of the grant. This estimate also requires determining the most appropriate inputs to the valuation model, including the expected life of the award, volatility and dividend yield, and making certain other assumptions about the award.

Depreciation.  Vessels are depreciated on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful economic life from the date of initial delivery from the shipyard. The useful life of our vessels is estimated at 25 years from the date of initial delivery from the shipyard. Depreciation is based on cost less estimated residual scrap value. Residual scrap value is estimated as the lightweight tonnage of each vessel multiplied by the estimated scrap value per ton. The estimated scrap value is reviewed each year.

Vessel impairment.  Vessels and equipment that are “held and used” are assessed for impairment when events or circumstances indicate the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. When such indicators are present, a vessel to be held and used is tested for recoverability by comparing the estimate of future undiscounted net operating cash flows expected to be generated by the use of the vessel over its remaining useful life and its eventual disposition to its carrying amount. An impairment charge is recognized if the carrying value is in excess of the estimated future undiscounted net operating cash flows. The impairment loss is measured based on the excess of the carrying amount over the fair market value of the asset.

Net operating cash flows are determined by applying various assumptions regarding future revenues net of commissions, operating expenses, scheduled drydockings, expected offhire and scrap values. These assumptions are based on historical trends as well as future expectations. Specifically, in estimating future charter rates, management takes into consideration rates currently in effect for existing time charters and estimated daily time charter equivalent rates for each vessel class for the unfixed days over the estimated remaining lives of each of the vessels. The estimated daily time charter equivalent rates used for unfixed days are based on a combination of internally forecasted rates that are consistent with forecasts provided to senior management and our board of directors, and the trailing 10-year historical average one-year time charter rates, based on average rates published by maritime researchers. Recognizing that rates tend to be cyclical, and subject to significant volatility based on factors beyond our control, and management believes the use of estimates based on the combination of internally forecasted rates and 10-year historical average rates calculated as of the reporting date to be reasonable. Estimated outflows for operating expenses and drydocking requirements are based on historical and budgeted costs and are adjusted for assumed inflation. Utilization is based on historical levels achieved and estimates of a residual value are consistent with scrap rates used in management’s evaluation of scrap value.

Although management believes that the assumptions used to evaluate potential impairment are reasonable and appropriate at the time they were made, such assumptions are highly subjective and likely to change, possibly materially, in the future. There can be no assurance as to how long charter rates and vessel values will remain at their current levels or whether they will improve by a significant degree. If charter rates were to be at depressed levels, future assessments of vessel impairment would be adversely affected.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In recent years, the market values of vessels have experienced particular volatility, with substantial declines in many of the charter-free market values, or basic market values, of various vessel classes. As a result, our vessels may have declined below those vessels’ carrying values, even though we did not impair those vessels’ carrying values under our impairment accounting policy. This is due to our belief that future undiscounted cash flows expected to be earned by such vessels over their operating lives would exceed such vessels’ carrying amounts.

Our estimates of basic market value assume that our vessels are all in good and seaworthy condition without the need for repair and, if inspected, that they would be certified in class without notations of any kind. Our estimates are based on the estimated market values for our vessels that we have received from independent ship brokers, reports by industry analysts and data providers that focus on our industry and related dynamics affecting vessel values, and news and industry reports of similar vessel sales. Vessel values are highly volatile and as such, our estimates may not be indicative of the current or future basic market value of our vessels or prices that we could achieve if we were to sell them.

The table below indicates the carrying value of each of our owned vessels as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, at which time we were not holding any of the vessels listed in the table below as held for sale. We believe that the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be earned by those vessels of our fleet that have experienced a decline in charter-free market value below such vessels’ carrying value over their operating lives would exceed such vessels’ carrying values as of December 31, 2015, and, accordingly, have not recorded an impairment charge.

Carrying value includes, as applicable, drydock, upgrades, capitalized interest, supervision fees and other newbuilding pre-delivery costs. Deposits paid, or costs incurred, in relation to the acquisition of second-hand vessels are not presented in the table below.

										Carrying Value as at
		Built				DWT				Dec 31, 2015				Dec 31, 2014
Ardmore Seavaliant			2013				49,998			$	35,603,953				37,029,009
Ardmore Seaventure			2013				49,998				36,252,463				37,706,584
Ardmore Seavantage			2014				49,997				37,537,599				39,006,544
Ardmore Seavanguard			2014				49,998				37,672,893				39,142,171
Ardmore Sealion			2015				49,999				35,129,760				—
Ardmore Seafox			2015				49,999				35,169,232				—
Ardmore Seawolf			2015				49,999				35,597,458				—
Ardmore Seahawk			2015				49,999				36,044,048				—
Ardmore Endeavour			2013				49,997				34,181,654				35,497,737
Ardmore Seafarer			2004				45,744				19,931,834				21,531,464
Ardmore Seatrader			2002				47,141				18,570,440				18,820,205
Ardmore Seamaster			2004				45,840				20,210,571				21,990,046
Ardmore Seamariner			2006				45,726				20,776,068				22,421,449
Ardmore Sealeader			2008				47,463				22,368,373				23,449,705
Ardmore Sealifter			2008				47,472				21,816,947				22,831,489
Ardmore Dauntless			2015				37,764				35,805,905				—
Ardmore Defender			2015				37,791				35,913,200				—
Ardmore Centurion			2005				29,006				19,345,625				19,044,680
Ardmore Cherokee			2015				25,215				30,678,967				—
Ardmore Cheyenne			2015				25,217				30,916,192				—
Ardmore Chinook			2015				25,217				31,203,225				—
Ardmore Chippewa			2015				25,217				31,632,901				—
Ardmore Calypso			2010				17,589				18,783,238				19,719,305
Ardmore Capella			2010				17,567				18,300,747				17,657,252
Total										$	699,443,292				375,847,640