SFL (SFL) 20-F2022 FY Annual report (foreign)

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Throughout this report, the "Company", "SFL ", "we", "us" and "our" all refer to SFL Corporation Ltd. and its subsidiaries. We use the term deadweight ton, or dwt, in describing the size of the vessels. Dwt, expressed in metric tons, each of which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, refers to the maximum weight of cargo and supplies that a vessel can carry. We use the term twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEU, in describing container vessels to refer to the number of standard twenty-foot containers that the vessel can carry, and we use the term car equivalent units, or CEU, in describing car carriers to refer to the number of standard cars that the vessel can carry. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to "USD," "US$" and "$" in this report are to, and amounts are presented in, U.S. dollars.

 

Our assets are primarily engaged in transporting crude oil and oil products, dry bulk and containerized cargoes, freight of rolling cargo, and in offshore drilling and related activities. The risk factors summarized in the Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements and Summary of Risk Factors and detailed below, summarize certain risks that may materially affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Unless otherwise indicated in this annual report on Form 20-F, all information concerning our business and our assets is as of March 16, 2023.

The principal risks that could adversely affect, or have adversely affected, our Company’s business, operation results and financial conditions are categorized and detailed below.

Our assets operate within a variety of markets that are volatile and unpredictable. Several risk factors including but not limited to our global and local market presence will impact our widespread operations. We are exposed to regulatory, statutory, operational, technical, counterpart, environmental and political risks, and other developments and regulations applicable to us and our industry that may impact and or disrupt our business. Details of specific risks relating to our industry are described below.

Our Company is subject to a significant number of external and internal risks. We are an entity incorporated in Bermuda with operations in different jurisdictions, markets and industries and, with numerous employees, shareholders, customers and other stakeholders having varying interests, and this broad exposure subjects us to significant risks. We also engage in activities, operations and actions that could result in harm to our Company, and adversely affect our financial performance, position and our business. Details of specific risks relating to our Company are described below.

Our common shares are subject to a significant number of external and internal risks. The market price of our common shares has historically been unpredictable and volatile. As a holding company, we depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to satisfy our financial and other obligations. As we are a foreign corporation, our shareholders may not have the same rights as a shareholder in a U.S. corporation may have. In addition, our shareholders may not be able to bring suit against us or enforce a judgement obtained in the U.S. against us since our offices and the majority of our assets are located outside of the U.S. Furthermore, sales of our common shares or conversions of our convertible notes could cause the market price of our common shares to decline. Details of specific risks relating to our common shares are described below.

Some risks are static while other risks may change and will vary depending on global and corporate developments that may occur now or in the future. The risk factors below identify risks relating to our industry, Company and common shares. These risks may not cover all and future applicable risk factors applicable to the Company.

The international seaborne transportation industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter hire rates and profitability. The degree of charter hire rate volatility for vessels has varied widely. A worsening of current global economic conditions may cause the charter rates applicable to our vessels to decline and thereby adversely affect our ability to charter or re-charter our vessels and any renewal or replacement charters that we enter into, may not be sufficient to allow us to operate our vessels profitably. In addition, the conflict in Ukraine is disrupting energy production and trade patterns, including shipping in the Black Sea and elsewhere, and its impact on energy prices and tanker rates, which initially have increased, is uncertain. Fluctuations in charter hire rates result from changes in the supply of and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply of and demand for energy resources, commodities, semi-finished and finished consumer and industrial products internationally carried at sea. If we enter into a charter when charter hire rates are low, our revenues and earnings will be adversely affected. In addition, a decline in charter hire rates is likely to cause the market value of our vessels to decline. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully charter our vessels in the future or renew our existing charters at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our business profitably, meet our obligations or pay dividends to our shareholders. The factors affecting the supply and demand for vessels are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Demand for our vessels and charter hire rates are dependent upon, among other things, seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet. There can be no assurance that global economic growth will be at a rate sufficient to utilize existing or new capacity. Continued adverse economic, political or social conditions or other developments including inflationary pressure and the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, could further negatively impact charter hire rates, and therefore have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

Furthermore, the conflict in Ukraine combined with inflationary pressures and/or supply chain disruptions across most major economies have negatively impacted certain of the countries in which we operate in and may lead to a global economic slowdown, which might in turn adversely affect demand for our vessels. In particular, the conflict in Ukraine and related sanctions measures imposed against Russia has and is disrupting energy production and trade patterns, including shipping in the Black Sea and elsewhere, and has impacted the price of certain dry bulk goods, such as grain, as well as energy and fuel prices. Notably, various jurisdictions have imposed sanctions against Russia directly targeting the maritime transport of goods originating from Russia, such as of oil products and agricultural commodities such as potash. Such measures, and the response of targeted jurisdictions to them, have disrupted trade patterns of certain of the goods which we transport and have correspondingly impacted charter rates for the transport of such goods. As the number of jurisdictions imposing sanctions upon Russia grows and/or the nature of sanctions being imposed evolves, the charter rates we are able to obtain could begin to weaken.

In addition to the prevailing and anticipated freight rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, recycling and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to recycling prices, costs of bunkers and other operating costs, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance costs, insurance coverage costs, the efficiency and age profile of the existing fleet in the market, and government and industry regulation of maritime transportation practices, particularly environmental protection laws and regulations. These factors influencing the supply of and demand for shipping capacity are outside of our control, and we may not be able to correctly assess the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions.

Further, the market may fluctuate widely based on a variety of factors including changes in overall market movements, political and economic events, wars, acts of terrorism, natural disasters (including disease, epidemics and pandemics) and changes in interest rates or inflation rates.

The supply of vessels generally increases with deliveries of new vessels and decreases with the recycling of older vessels, conversion of vessels to other uses, such as floating production and storage facilities, and loss of tonnage as a result of casualties. An over-supply of vessel capacity, combined with a decline in the demand for such vessels, may result in a reduction of charter hire rates. Upon the expiration or termination of our vessels’ current charters, if we are unable to re-charter our vessels at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our vessels profitably or at all such inability, would have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Various macroeconomic factors could adversely affect our business and the results of our operations and financial condition, including changes in inflation, interest rates and overall economic conditions and uncertainties such as those resulting from the current and future conditions in the global financial markets. For instance, inflation has negatively impacted us by increasing our labor costs, through higher wages and higher interest rates, and operating costs. Supply chain constraints have led to higher inflation, which if sustained could have a negative impact on our product development and operations. If inflation or other factors were to significantly increase, our business operations may be negatively affected. Interest rates, the liquidity of the credit markets and the volatility of the capital markets could also affect the operation of our business and our ability to raise capital on favorable terms, or at all, in order to fund our operations.

Increased inflation, including rising prices for items, such as fuel, parts and components, freight, packaging, supplies, labor and energy increases the Company’s operating costs. The Company does not currently use financial derivatives to hedge against volatility in commodity prices. The Company uses market prices for materials, fuel, parts and components. The Company may be unable to pass these rising costs onto its customers. To mitigate this exposure, the Company attempts to include cost escalation clauses in its longer-term marine transportation contracts whereby certain costs, including fuel, can largely be passed through to its customers. Results of operations and margin performance can be negatively affected if the Company is unable to mitigate the impact of these cost increases through contractual means and is unable to increase prices to sufficiently offset the effect of these cost increases.

Materials, components, and equipment essential to the Company’s operations are normally readily available, and shortages as a result of supply chain disruptions can adversely impact the Company’s operations, particularly where the Company has a limited number of suppliers. Many of the items essential to the Company’s business require the use of shipping services to transport them to the Company’s facilities. Shipping delays or disruptions may result in operational slowdowns, especially where materials, components, or equipment are necessary to complete an order for the Company’s customers, particularly in the marine transportation segment. These constraints could have a material adverse effect on the Company and contribute to increased buildup of inventories. In addition, price increases imposed by the Company’s vendors for materials and shipping services used in its business, and the inability to pass these increases through to its customers, could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Throughout 2022, we experienced significant increases in the costs of certain materials, including steel and fuel, as a result of availability constraints, supply chain disruption, increased demand, labor shortages, inflation and other factors. Though we incorporated inflationary factors into our 2022 business plan, inflation outpaced those original assumptions and, while we have incorporated inflationary factors into our 2023 business plan, inflation may outpace those assumptions. These challenges are due in large measure to increased demand for oil and gas production driven by the continued economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and more broadly, systemic underinvestment in global oil and gas development. These supply and demand fundamentals have been further aggravated by disruptions in global energy supply caused by multiple geopolitical events, including the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We continue to undertake actions and implement plans to strengthen our supply chain to address these pressures and protect the requisite access to commodities and services. Nevertheless, we expect for the foreseeable future to experience supply chain constraints and may continue to experience inflationary pressure on our cost structure. These supply chain constraints and inflationary pressures may continue to adversely impact our cost of operations and if we are unable to manage our global supply chain, it may impact our ability to procure materials and equipment in a timely and cost-effective manner, if at all, which could result in reduced margins and production delays and, as a result, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

Major market disruptions and adverse changes in market conditions and regulatory climate in China, the United States, the European Union and worldwide may adversely affect our business or impair our ability to borrow amounts under credit facilities or any future financial arrangements. Credit markets and the debt and equity capital markets have at times in the past been distressed and there is uncertainty surrounding the future of the global credit markets, particularly for the shipping industry.

Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally, and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the availability and cost of obtaining money from the public and private equity and debt markets may become more difficult. Many lenders have increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to current debt, and reduced, and in some cases ceased, to provide funding to borrowers and other market participants, including equity and debt investors, and some have been unwilling to invest on attractive terms or even at all. Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that financing will be available if needed and to the extent required, or that we will be able to refinance our existing and future credit facilities, on acceptable terms or at all. If financing or refinancing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to 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.

Continuing concerns over COVID-19, inflation, rising interest rates, energy costs, geopolitical issues, including acts of war and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and the markets going forward. These factors, combined with volatile oil prices, declining business and consumer confidence, have precipitated fears of a possible economic recession. Domestic and international equity markets continue to experience heightened volatility and turmoil. The weakness in the global economy has caused, and may continue to cause, a decrease in worldwide demand for certain goods and, thus, shipping.

As of December 31, 2022, we had total outstanding indebtedness of $2.2 billion under our various credit facilities and bond loans and a further $0.5 billion of finance lease obligations. In addition, we had a further $0.2 billion of finance lease obligations in our associated companies.

We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside of the United States, and our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends, if any, in the future may be adversely affected by changing economic, political and government conditions in the countries and regions where our vessels or rigs are employed or registered. Moreover, we operate in a sector of the economy that is likely to be adversely impacted by the effects of political conflicts.

Currently, the world economy faces a number of challenges, including trade tensions between the United States and China, stabilizing growth in China, geopolitical events, such as Brexit, continuing threat of terrorist attacks around the world, continuing instability and conflicts and other recent occurrences in the Middle East, Ukraine and in other geographic areas and countries.

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 and most recently in the Black Sea in connection with the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 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 future performance, results of operation, cash flows and financial position.

Beginning in February of 2022, President Biden and several European leaders announced various economic sanctions against Russia in connection with the aforementioned conflict in the Ukraine, which may adversely impact our business, given Russia’s role as a major global exporter of crude oil and natural gas. The United States has implemented the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions program, which includes prohibitions on the import of certain Russian energy products into the United States, including crude oil, petroleum, petroleum fuels, oils, liquefied natural gas and coal, as well as prohibitions on all new investments in Russia by U.S. persons, among other restrictions. Furthermore, the United States has also prohibited a variety of specified services related to the maritime transport of Russian Federation origin crude oil and petroleum products, including trading/commodities brokering, financing, shipping, insurance (including reinsurance and protection and indemnity), flagging, and customs brokering. These prohibitions took effect on December 5, 2022 with respect to the maritime transport of crude oil and took effect on February 5, 2023 with respect to the maritime transport of other petroleum products. An exception exists to permit such services when the price of the seaborne Russian oil does not exceed the relevant price cap; however, the impact from price cap regulation has been muted since the outbreak of the war and implementation of new sanctions, in addition to sanctions already in place and self-sanctioning, had already redirected a significant share of Russian exports away from Europe. Violations of the price cap policy or the risk that information, documentation, or attestations provided by parties in the supply chain are later determined to be false may pose additional risks adversely affecting our business.

In addition, on February 24, 2023, the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a new determination pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 14024, which enables the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities who operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector of the Russian economy. Increased restrictions on the metals and mining sector may pose additional risks adversely affecting our business.

Our business could also be adversely impacted by trade tariffs, trade embargoes or other economic sanctions that limit trading activities by the United States or other countries against countries in the Middle East, Asia or elsewhere as a result of terrorist attacks, hostilities or diplomatic or political pressures.

In addition, public health threats, such as COVID-19, influenza and other highly communicable diseases or viruses, outbreaks of which have from time to time occurred in various parts of the world in which we operate, including China, Japan and South Korea, which may even become pandemics, such as the COVID-19 virus, could lead to a significant decrease of demand for seaborne transportation. Such events may also adversely impact our operations, including timely rotation of our crews, the timing of completion of any outstanding or future newbuilding projects or repair works in drydock as well as the operations of our customers. Delayed rotation of crew may adversely affect the mental and physical health of our crew and the safe operation of our vessels or rigs as a consequence.

Our operations are affected by extensive and changing international, national, state and local laws, regulations, treaties, conventions and standards in force in international waters, the jurisdictions in which our tankers and other vessels operate, and the country or countries in which such vessels are registered, including those governing the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of oil spills and other contamination, air emissions, and water discharges and ballast and bilge water management. These regulations include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard, or the USCG, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and regulations of the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, or MARPOL, including the designation thereunder of Emission Control Areas, or ECAs, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, or CLC, and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966. In particular, IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee ("MEPC") 73, amendments to Annex VI prohibiting the carriage of bunkers above 0.5% sulfur on ships took effect March 1, 2020 and may cause us to incur substantial costs. Compliance with these regulations could have a material adverse effect our business and financial results.

In addition, vessel classification societies and the requirements set forth in the IMO’s International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code, also impose significant safety and other requirements on our vessels. In complying with current and future environmental requirements, vessel owners and operators may also incur significant additional costs in meeting new maintenance and inspection requirements, in developing contingency arrangements for potential spills and in obtaining insurance coverage. Government regulation of vessels, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental requirements, can be expected to become stricter in the future and require us to incur significant capital expenditures on our vessels to keep them in compliance, or even to recycle or sell certain vessels altogether.

Many of these requirements are designed to reduce the risk of oil spills and other pollution, and our compliance with these requirements can be costly. These requirements can also affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels, require reductions in cargo capacity, ship modifications or operational changes or restrictions, lead to decreased availability of insurance coverage for environmental matters or result in the denial of access to certain jurisdictional waters or ports, or detention in certain ports.

Under local, national and foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material liabilities, including cleanup obligations, natural resource damages and third-party claims for personal injury or property damages, in the event that there is a release of petroleum or other hazardous substances from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our current or historic operations. A failure to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations, or to obtain or maintain necessary environmental permits or approvals, or a non-compliant release of oil or other hazardous substances in connection with our drilling contracts could subject us to significant administrative and civil fines and penalties, and other civil or criminal sanctions, remediation costs for natural resource damages, third-party damages, material adverse publicity and, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels.

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. For example, OPA affects all vessel owners shipping oil to, from or within the United States. Under OPA, 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. Similarly, the CLC, which has been adopted by most countries outside of the United States, imposes liability for oil pollution in international waters. OPA expressly permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to hazardous materials and oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Coastal states in the United States have enacted pollution prevention liability and response laws, many providing for unlimited liability.

Our operations are subject to all of the hazards and operating risks associated with drilling for and production of oil and natural gas, including natural disasters, the risk of fire, explosions, blowouts, surface cratering, uncontrollable flows of natural gas, oil and formation water, pipe or pipeline failures, abnormally pressured formations, casing collapses and environmental hazards such as oil spills, natural gas leaks, ruptures or discharges of toxic gases, all of which could cause substantial financial losses.

An oil spill could also result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other international and U.S. federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages, and could harm our reputation with current or potential charterers of our vessels. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although we have arranged insurance to cover certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and available cash.

Some laws may expose the us to liability for the conduct of, or conditions caused by, third parties (including customers and subcontractors), or for acts that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time they were performed. Further, some of these laws and regulations may impose direct and strict liability, rendering a company or a person liable for environmental damage without regard to negligence. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents and the insurance may not be sufficient to cover all such risks and may at times become materially more costly to acquire.

We have generally been able to obtain some degree of contractual indemnification pursuant to which our customers agree to hold harmless and indemnify SFL against liability for pollution, well and environmental damage. However, generally in the oil and natural gas services industry there is increasing pressure from customers to pass on a larger portion of the liabilities to contractors, as part of their risk management policies. Further, there can be no assurance that we can obtain indemnities in our contracts or that, in the event of extensive pollution and environmental damage, its customers would have the financial capability to fulfil their contractual obligations. Further, such indemnities may be deemed legally unenforceable based on relevant law, including as a result of public policy.

The insurance coverage we currently hold may not be available in the future, or we may not obtain certain insurance coverage. Even if insurance is available and we have obtained the coverage, it may not be adequate to cover our liabilities, may not be available on satisfactory terms and/or subject to high premiums, or our insurance underwriters may be unable to pay compensation if a significant claim should occur. Any of these scenarios could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Effective January 1, 2020, the IMO implemented a new regulation for a 0.50% global sulfur cap on emissions from vessels (the “IMO 2020 Regulations”). Under this new global cap, vessels are required to use marine fuels with a sulfur content of no more than 0.50% against the former regulations specifying a maximum of 3.50% sulfur in an effort to reduce the emission of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere.

We have incurred increased costs to comply with these revised standards. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require, among others, the installation of expensive emission control systems and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

We continue to work closely with suppliers and producers on alternative mechanisms with a view to secure availability of qualitative compliant fuel oil and mitigate exposure to volatility in prices between high sulfur fuel oil and low sulfur fuel oil. The procurement of large quantities of low sulfur fuel oil has introduced a commodity price risk with fluctuations in the prices of the procured commodity between the time of the purchase and the consumption. While we may implement financial strategies with a view to limiting the risk, we cannot give any assurances that such strategies will be successful in which case we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operation and cash flows. The onward consumption on our vessels of the procured commodity requires us to blend, co-mingle or otherwise combine, handle or manipulate such commodities which implies certain operational risks that may result in loss of or damage to the procured commodities or to the vessels and their machinery.

While over two years have passed since the IMO 2020 Regulations became effective, it is still uncertain how the availability of high-sulfur fuel around the world will be affected by implementation of these regulations. Both the availability of compliant fuel and the price of high-sulfur fuel generally and the difference between the cost of high-sulfur fuel and that of low-sulfur fuel are also uncertain. As of March 16, 2023, 31 of our owned or leased vessels and four vessels that are included in our associated companies are equipped with exhaust gas cleaning systems ("EGCS" or "scrubbers"). As of January 1, 2020 we have transitioned to burning IMO compliant fuels in our vessels where scrubbers have not been installed. We continue to evaluate different options in complying with IMO and other rules and regulations. Our fuel costs and fuel inventories have increased as a result of these sulfur emission regulations. Low sulfur fuel is more expensive than standard marine fuel containing 3.5% sulfur content and may become more expensive or difficult to obtain as a result of increased demand. If the cost differential between low sulfur fuel and high sulfur fuel is significantly higher than anticipated, or if low sulfur fuel is not available at ports on certain trading routes, it may not be feasible or competitive to operate our vessels on certain trading routes without installing scrubbers or without incurring deviation time to obtain compliant fuel. Scrubbers may not be available to be installed on such vessels at a favorable cost or at all if we seek them at a later date. Further, there is risk that if the fuel spread between high sulfur fuel oil and low sulfur fuel oil decreases, we may not be able to recover the investments we have made in our scrubbers within our expected timeframes or at all.

Fuel is a significant, if not the largest, expense in our shipping operations when vessels are under voyage charter and is an important factor in negotiating charter rates. Our operations and the performance of our vessels, and as a result our results of operations, cash flows and financial position, may be negatively affected to the extent that compliant sulfur fuel oils are unavailable, of low or inconsistent quality, if de-bunkering facilities are unavailable to permit our vessels to accept compliant fuels when required, or upon occurrence of any of the other foregoing events. Costs of compliance with these and other related regulatory changes may be significant and may have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. As a result, an increase in the price of fuel beyond our expectations may adversely affect our profitability at the time of charter negotiation. Further, fuel may become much more expensive in the future, which may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

The 2009 Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (the “Hong Kong Convention”), aims to ensure ships, being recycled once they reach the end of their operational lives do not pose any unnecessary risks to the environment, human health and safety. The Hong Kong Convention has yet to be ratified by the required number of countries to enter into force. Upon the Hong Kong Convention's entry into force, each ship sent for recycling will have to carry an inventory of its hazardous materials. The hazardous materials, whose use or installation are prohibited in certain circumstances, are listed in an appendix to the Hong Kong Convention. Ships will be required to have surveys to verify their inventory of hazardous materials initially, throughout their lives and prior to the ship being recycled.

The Hong Kong Convention, which is currently open for accession by IMO member states, will enter into force 24 months after the date on which 15 IMO member states, representing at least 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, have ratified or approve accession. As of the date of this annual report, 20 countries have ratified or approved accession of the Hong Kong Convention, but the requirement of 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage has not yet been satisfied.

On November 20, 2013, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU adopted the EU Ship Recycling Regulation, or ESSR, which, among other things, retains the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention and requires that certain commercial seagoing vessels flying the flag of an EU member state may be recycled only in facilities included on the European list of permitted ship recycling facilities.

Apart from that, any vessel, including ours, is required to set up and maintain an Inventory of Hazardous Materials from December 31, 2018 for EU flagged new ships and from December 31, 2020 for EU flagged existing ships and non-EU flagged ships calling at a port or anchorage of an EU member state. Such a system includes information on the hazardous materials with a quantity above the threshold values specified in the relevant EU Resolution and are identified in ship’s structure and equipment. This inventory should be properly maintained and updated, especially after repairs, conversions or unscheduled maintenance on board the ship.

Under the ESSR, commercial EU-flagged vessels of 500 gross tonnage and above may be recycled only at shipyards included on the European List of Authorised Ship Recycling Facilities (the “European List”). The European List presently includes eight facilities in Turkey but no facilities in the major ship recycling countries in Asia. The combined capacity of the European List facilities may prove insufficient to absorb the total recycling volume of EU-flagged vessels. This circumstance, taken in tandem with the possible decrease in cash sales, may result in longer wait times for divestment of recyclable vessels as well as downward pressure on the purchase prices offered by European List shipyards. Furthermore, facilities located in the major ship recycling countries generally offer significantly higher vessel purchase prices, and as such, the requirement that we utilize only European List shipyards may negatively impact revenue from the residual values of our vessels.

In addition, on December 31, 2018, the European Waste Shipment Regulation, or EWSR, requires that non-EU flagged ships departing from EU ports be recycled only in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, member countries. In March 2018, the Rotterdam District Court ruled that the sale of four recyclable vessels by third-party Dutch ship owner Seatrade to cash buyers, who then reflagged and resold the vessels to non-OECD country recycling yards, were effectively indirect sales to non-OECD country yards, in violation of the EWSR. If European Union Member State courts widely adopt this analysis, it may negatively impact revenue from the residual values of our vessels and we may be subject to a heightened risk of non-compliance, due diligence obligations and costs in instances where we sell older ships to cash buyers.

These regulatory requirements, may lead to cost escalation by shipyards, repair yards and recycling yards. This may then result in a decrease in the residual recycling value of a vessel, which could potentially not cover the cost to comply with the latest requirements, which may have an adverse effect on our future performance, results of operation, cash flows and financial position.

Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries and the IMO have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures may include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. More specifically, on October 27, 2016, the IMO’s MEPC announced its decision concerning the implementation of regulations mandating a reduction in sulfur emissions from 3.5% to 0.5% as of the beginning of January 1, 2020. Additionally, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies levels of ambition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including (i) decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships; (ii) reducing carbon dioxide emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 emission levels; and (iii) reducing the total annual greenhouse emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely.

The European Commission has proposed adding shipping to the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) as of 2023 with a phase-in period. It is expected that shipowners will need to purchase and surrender a number of emission allowances that represent their recorded carbon emission exposure for a specific reporting period. The person or organization responsible for the compliance with the EU Emissions Trading System (“EU ETS”) should be the shipping company, defined as the shipowner or any other organization or person, such as the manager or the bareboat charterer, that has assumed the responsibility for the operation of the ship from the shipowner. On December 18, 2022, the Environmental Council and European Parliament agreed to include maritime shipping emissions within the scope of the EU ETS on a gradual introduction of obligations for shipping companies to surrender allowances: 40% for verified emissions from 2024, 70% for 2025 and 100% for 2026. Most large vessels will be included in the scope of the EU ETS from the start. Big offshore vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will be included in the 'MRV' on the monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport regulation from 2025 and in the EU ETS from 2027. General cargo vessels and off-shore vessels between 400-5,000 gross tonnage will be included in the MRV regulation from 2025 and their inclusion in EU ETS will be reviewed in 2026. Compliance with the Maritime EU ETS could result in additional compliance and administration costs to properly incorporate the provisions of the Directive into our business routines. Additional EU regulations which are part of the EU’s Fit-for-55, could also affect our financial position in terms of compliance and administration costs when they take effect.

Since January 1, 2020, ships must either remove sulfur from emissions or buy fuel with low sulfur content, which may lead to increased costs and supplementary investments for ship owners. The interpretation of “fuel oil used on board” includes use in main engine, auxiliary engines and boilers. Shipowners must comply with this regulation by (i) using 0.5% sulfur fuels on board, which are available around the world but at a higher cost; (ii) installing scrubbers for cleaning of the exhaust gas; or (iii) by retrofitting vessels to be powered by alternative fuels, which may not be a viable option due to the lack of supply network and high costs involved in this process. Costs of compliance with these regulatory changes may be significant and may have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operation, cash flows and financial position.

On November 13, 2021, the Glasgow Climate Pact was announced following discussions at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (“COP26”). The Glasgow Climate Pact calls for signatory states to voluntarily phase out fossil fuels subsidies. A shift away from these products could potentially affect the demand for our vessels and negatively impact our future business, operating results, cash flows and financial position. COP26 also produced the Clydebank Declaration, in which 22 signatory states (including the United States and United Kingdom) announced their intention to voluntarily support the establishment of zero-emission shipping routes. Governmental and investor pressure to voluntarily participate in these green shipping routes could cause us to incur significant additional expenses to “green” our vessels.

Territorial taxonomy regulations in geographies where we are operating and are regulatorily liable might jeopardize the level of access to capital. For example, EU has already introduced a set of criteria for economic activities which should be framed as ‘green’, called EU Taxonomy. As long as we are an EU-based company meeting the NFRD prerequisites, we will be eligible for reporting our Taxonomy eligibility and alignment. Based on the current version of the Regulation, companies that own assets shipping fossil fuels are considered as not aligned with EU Taxonomy. The outcome of such provision might be either an increase in the cost of capital and/or gradually reduced access to financing as a result of financial institutions’ compliance with EU Taxonomy.

In addition, although the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping currently are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which required adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, or the Paris Agreement (discussed further below), a new treaty may be adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change may affect the propulsion options in subsequent vessel designs and could increase our costs related to acquiring new vessels, operating and maintaining our existing vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about the environmental impact of climate change, may also adversely affect demand for our services. For example, increased regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil and gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources and alternate modes of transporting goods. In addition, the physical effects of climate change, including changes in weather patterns, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, scarcity of water resources, may negatively impact our operations. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

The IMO has imposed updated guidelines for ballast water management systems specifying the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged from a vessel’s ballast water. Depending on the date of the International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey, existing vessels constructed before September 8, 2017 must comply with the updated D-2 Discharge Performance Standard (“D-2 standard”) on or after September 8, 2019. Ships constructed on or after September 8, 2017 are to comply with the D-2 standards on or after September 8, 2017. For most vessels, compliance with the D-2 standard will involve installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and to eliminate unwanted organisms, which may incur substantial costs.

We currently have eight vessels that are on fixed price management agreements with Golden Ocean Group Management (Bermuda) Ltd, or Golden Ocean Management, which include the cost of complying with regulations. We have an additional 10 vessels employed under bareboat charters where the cost of fitting ballast water treatment systems would lie with the charterer, if such vessel is still employed under the relevant bareboat charter at the time the regulations become applicable. We also have 49 vessels employed in the spot market or under time charter agreements. These have either already been fitted with ballast water treatment systems or will have them fitted within the required deadlines. The costs of compliance may be substantial and could adversely affect our profitability.

A significant portion of our earnings are related to the oil industry. A shift in or disruption of the consumer demand from oil towards other energy resources such as electricity, natural gas, liquefied natural gas or hydrogen will potentially affect the demand for certain of our vessels and rigs. A shift from the use of internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles may also reduce the demand for oil. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operation, cash flows and financial position.

“Peak oil” is the year when the maximum rate of extraction of oil is reached. Recent forecasts of “peak oil” range from the late 2020s to 2040, depending on economics and how governments respond to global warming. OPEC maintains that demand for oil will plateau around 2040, despite transition toward other energy sources. Irrespective of “peak oil”, the continuing shift in consumer demand from oil towards other energy resources such as wind energy, solar energy, hydrogen energy or nuclear energy, which appears to be accelerating as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well shifts in government commitments and support for energy transition programs, may have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Seaborne trading and distribution patterns are primarily influenced by the relative advantage of the various sources of production, locations of consumption, pricing differentials and seasonality. Changes to the trade patterns of crude oil or refined oil products may have a significant negative or positive impact on the revenue per ton of freight per mile and therefore the demand for our tankers. This could have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operation, cash flows and financial position.

We have not engaged in shipping or drilling activities in countries or territories or with government-controlled entities in 2022 in violation of any applicable sanctions or embargoes imposed by the U.S. government, the EU, the United Nations or other applicable governmental authorities. Our contracts with our charterers may prohibit them from causing our vessels to call on ports located in sanctioned countries or territories or carrying cargo for entities that are the subject of sanctions. Although our charterers may, in certain causes, control the operation of our vessels, we have monitoring processes in place reasonably designed to ensure our compliance with applicable economic sanctions and embargo laws. Nevertheless it remains possible that our charterers may cause our vessels to trade in violation of sanctions provisions without our consent. If such activities result in a violation of applicable sanctions or embargo laws, we could be subject to monetary fines, penalties, or other sanctions, and our reputation and the market for our common shares could be adversely affected.

U.S. sanctions exist under a strict liability regime. A party need not know it is violating sanctions and need not intend to violate sanctions to be liable. We could be subject to monetary fines, penalties, or other sanctions for violating applicable sanctions or embargo laws even in circumstances where our conduct, or the conduct of a charterer, is consistent with our sanctions-related policies, unintentional or inadvertent.

The applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations of these difference jurisdictions vary in their application and do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities. In addition, the sanctions and embargo laws and regulations of each jurisdiction may be amended to increase or reduce the restrictions they impose over time, and the lists of persons and entities designated under these laws and regulations are amended frequently. Moreover, most sanctions regimes provide that entities owned or controlled by the persons or entities designated in such lists are also subject to sanctions. The U.S. and EU have enacted new sanctions programs in recent years. Additional countries or territories, as well as additional persons or entities within or affiliated with those countries or territories, have, and in the future will, become the target of sanctions. These require us to be diligent in ensuring our compliance with sanctions laws. Further, the U.S. has increased its focus on sanctions enforcement with respect to the shipping sector. Current or future counterparties of ours may be affiliated with persons or entities that are or may be in the future the subject of sanctions or embargoes imposed by the United States, EU, and/or other international bodies. If we determine that such sanctions require us to terminate existing or future contracts to which we, or our subsidiaries, are party or if we are found to be in violation of such applicable sanctions, our results of operations may be adversely affected, or we may suffer reputational harm. We may also experience damage to our reputation if the vessels we have sold are being used in sanctioned activity in violation of the contract of sale, either by the buyer or by a third party.

As a result of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the U.S., EU and United Kingdom, together with numerous other countries and self-sanctioning, have imposed significant sanctions on persons and entities associated with Russia and Belarus, as well as comprehensive sanctions on certain areas within the Donbas region of Ukraine, and such sanctions apply to entities owned or controlled by such designated persons or entities. These sanctions adversely affect our ability to operate in the region and also restrict parties whose cargo we may carry. Sanctions against Russia have also placed significant prohibitions on the maritime transportation of seaborne Russian oil, the importation of certain Russian energy products and other goods, and new investments in the Russian Federation. These sanctions further limit the scope of permissible operations including the maintenance of our vessels and the services provided to our vessels and crew while operating in these regions, and cargo we may carry. We may also encounter potential contractual disputes with charterers and insurers due to the various sanctions targeting Russian interests and Russian cargo.

Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations in 2022, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we or our charterers will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business, and could result in our reputation and the markets for our securities to be adversely affected and/or in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries or territories identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or to divest from, our shares may adversely affect the price at which our shares trade. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. In addition, our reputation and the market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters with individuals or entities that are not controlled by the governments of countries or territories that are the subject of certain U.S. sanctions or embargo laws, or engaging in operations associated with those countries or territories pursuant to contracts with third parties that are unrelated to those countries or territories or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in countries or territories that we operate in.

We employ our vessels in a highly competitive market that is capital intensive and highly fragmented, and competition arises primarily from other vessel owners. Competition for seaborne transportation of goods and products is intense and depends on charter rates and the location, size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel and its operators to charterers. Due in part to the highly fragmented market, competitors with greater resources could operate larger fleets than we may operate and thus be able to offer lower charter rates and higher quality vessels than we are able to offer. If this were to occur, we may be unable to retain or attract new charterers on attractive terms or at all, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Although we believe that no single competitor has a dominant position in the markets in which we compete, we are aware that certain competitors may be able to devote greater financial and other resources to certain activities than we can, resulting in a significant competitive threat to us. We cannot give assurances that we will continue to compete successfully with our competitors or that these factors will not erode our competitive position in the future.

Our industry is highly competitive, and our contracts are traditionally awarded on a competitive bid basis. Pricing, safety records and competency are key factors in determining which qualified contractor is awarded a contract. Rig availability, location and technical capabilities also can be significant factors in the determination. If we are not able to compete successfully, our revenues and profitability may decline.

Given the high capital requirements that are inherent in the offshore drilling industry, we may also be unable to invest in new technologies or expand in the future as may be necessary for us to succeed in this industry, while our larger competitors with superior financial resources, and in many cases less leverage than we have, may be able to respond more rapidly to changing market demands and compete more efficiently on price for drillship and drilling rig employment. We may not be able to maintain our competitive position, and we believe that competition for contracts will continue to be intense in the future. Our inability to compete successfully in the offshore drilling industry may reduce our revenues and profitability.

Demand for offshore contract drilling services is highly cyclical, which is primarily driven by the demand for drilling rigs and the available supply of drilling rigs. Demand for drilling rigs is driven by the levels of offshore exploration and development conducted by oil and natural gas companies, which is beyond our control and may fluctuate substantially from year-to-year and from region-to-region.

Prolonged periods of reduced demand or excess rig supply have required us, and may in the future require us, to idle, sell or scrap rigs and enter into low day rate contracts or contracts with unfavorable terms. There can be no assurance that the current demand for drilling rigs will increase in the future or that any short-term improvement to market conditions will be sustained. Any further decline in demand for drilling rigs or oversupply of drilling rigs could materially adversely affect our financial position, operating results or cash flows.

An increase in oil and natural gas prices or other factors could result in increased development activity and investment in our areas of operations, which may increase competition for and cost of equipment, labor and supplies. Shortages of, or increasing costs for, experienced drilling crews and equipment, labor or supplies could restrict our operators’ ability to conduct desired or expected operations. In addition, capital and operating costs in the oil and natural gas industry have generally risen during periods of increasing oil and natural gas prices as producers seek to increase production in order to capitalize on higher oil and natural gas prices. In situations where cost inflation exceeds oil and natural gas price inflation, our profitability and cash flow, and our operators’ ability to complete development activities as scheduled and on budget, may be negatively impacted. Any delay in the drilling of new wells or significant increase in drilling costs could reduce our revenues and profitability.

International shipping is subject to security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin, destination and trans-shipment points. Under the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the "MTSA"), the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities. These security procedures can result in the seizure of the contents of our vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or trans-shipment, and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against exporters or importers and, in some cases, carriers.

Future changes to the existing security procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. 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, financial condition and results of operations.

The offshore contract drilling industry is cyclical and volatile, and depends on the level of activity in oil and gas exploration and development and production in offshore areas worldwide. The availability of quality drilling prospects, exploration success, relative production costs, the stage of reservoir development and political and regulatory environments affect our customers' drilling campaigns. Oil and gas prices, and market expectations of potential changes in these prices, also significantly affect the level of activity and demand for drilling units.

Lower oil and gas prices have negatively affected, and could continue to negatively affect, the offshore drilling sector and have resulted, and could continue to result, in reduced exploration and drilling. These reductions in commodity prices have reduced the demand for drilling units. Continued weakness in oil and gas prices may result in an excess supply of drilling units and intensify competition in the industry, which may result in drilling units, particularly older and lower specification drilling units, being idle for long periods of time. We cannot predict the future level of demand for drilling units or future conditions of the oil and gas industry.

As an example of the volatility in oil prices, Brent fell to $9 per barrel in April 2020 before a recovery in oil and gas prices toward the end of 2020-early 2021 and continuing through part of 2022, during which time Brent rose above $120 per barrel, and fell to $82 per barrel in December 2022. However, there is no guarantee that the oil and gas price recovery will be sustained. Prices can continue to fluctuate and there may be longer periods of lower prices.

The supply of rigs in the market has, as a result of longer periods of significant fluctuations in oil and gas prices, continued to outweigh the demand. This trend may continue, and therefore have a damping effect on utilization levels and dayrates across all segments in 2023.

Continued periods of low demand can cause excess rig supply and intensify competition in our industry, which often results in drilling rigs, particularly older and less technologically-advanced drilling rigs, being idle for long periods of time. We cannot predict the future level of demand for drilling rigs or future condition of the oil and gas industry with any degree of certainty. Any future decrease in exploration, development or production expenditures by oil and gas companies could further reduce our revenues and materially harm our business.

Any of these factors could reduce demand for our offshore drilling assets and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our business and that of the charterers of our drilling units in the offshore drilling industry is affected by public policy and laws and regulations relating to the energy industry and the environment in the geographic areas where they operate.

The offshore drilling industry is dependent on demand for services from the oil and gas exploration and production industry, and, accordingly, the charterers of our drilling units are directly affected by the adoption of laws and regulations that, for economic, environmental or other policy reasons, curtail exploration and development drilling for oil and gas. For example, the current U.S. President Biden recently signed an executive order blocking new leases for oil and gas drilling in U.S. federal waters. The charterers of our drilling units may be required to make significant capital expenditures to comply with governmental laws and regulations. It is also possible that these laws and regulations may in the future add significantly to the charterers of our drilling units’ operating costs or significantly limit drilling activity. Governments in some countries are increasingly active in regulating and controlling the ownership of concessions, the exploration for oil and gas, and other aspects of the oil and gas industries. In recent years, increased concern has been raised over protection of the environment. Offshore drilling in certain areas has been opposed by environmental groups and has in certain cases been restricted. Further operations in less developed countries can be subject to legal systems that are not as mature or predictable as those in more developed countries, which can lead to greater uncertainty in legal matters and proceedings.

In certain jurisdictions there are or may be imposed restrictions or limitations on the operation of foreign flag vessels and rigs, and these restrictions may prevent us or our charterers from operating our assets as intended. We cannot guarantee that we or our charterers will be able to accommodate such restrictions or limitations, nor that we or our charterers can relocate the assets to other jurisdictions where such restrictions or limitations do not apply. A violation of such restrictions, or expropriation in particular, could result in the total loss of our investments and/or financial loss for our charterers, and we cannot guarantee that we have sufficient insurance coverage to compensate for such loss. This may have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

To the extent that new laws are enacted or other governmental actions are taken that prohibit or restrict offshore drilling or impose additional taxes and environmental protection requirements that result in increased costs to the oil and gas industry in general or the offshore drilling industry in particular, the charterers of our drilling units’ business or prospects could be materially adversely affected. The operation of our drilling units will require certain governmental approvals, the number and prerequisites of which cannot be determined until the charterers of our drilling units identify the jurisdictions in which they will operate upon securing contracts for the drilling units. Depending on the jurisdiction, these governmental approvals may involve public hearings and costly undertakings on the part of the charterers of our drilling units. The charterers of our drilling units may not obtain such approvals, or such approvals may not be obtained in a timely manner. If the charterers of our drilling units fail to secure the necessary approvals or permits in a timely manner, their customers may have the right to terminate or seek to renegotiate their drilling services contracts to the charterers of our drilling units’ detriment. The amendment or modification of existing laws and regulations, or the adoption of new laws and regulations curtailing or further regulating exploratory or development drilling and production of oil and gas, could have a material adverse effect on the charterers of our drilling units’ business, operating results or financial condition. Future earnings of the charterers of our drilling units may be negatively affected by compliance with any such new legislation or regulations. In addition, the charterers of our drilling units may become subject to additional laws and regulations as a result of future rig operations or repositioning. These factors may adversely affect the ability of the charterers of our drilling units to make payments to us. The failure of the charterers of our drilling units to meet their respective obligations to us under our existing lease agreements would likely have material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and compliance with covenants in our credit facilities.

The safety and security of our vessels and efficient operation of our business, including processing, transmitting and storing electronic and financial information, depend on computer hardware and software systems, which are increasingly vulnerable to security breaches and other disruptions. Any significant interruption or failure of our information systems or any significant breach of security could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our vessels rely on information systems for a significant part of their operations, including navigation, provision of services, propulsion, machinery management, power control, communications and cargo management. We have in place safety and security measures on our vessels and onshore operations to secure our vessels against cyber-security attacks and any disruption to their information systems. However, these measures and technology may not adequately prevent security breaches despite our continuous efforts to upgrade and address the latest known threats, which are constantly evolving and have become increasing sophisticated. If these threats are not recognized or detected until they have been launched, we may be unable to anticipate these threats and may not become aware in a timely manner of such a security breach, which could exacerbate any damage we experience. A disruption to the information system of any of our vessels could lead to, among other things, incorrect routing, collision, grounding and propulsion failure.

Beyond our vessels, we rely on industry accepted security measures and technology to securely maintain confidential and proprietary information maintained on our information systems. However, these measures and technology may not adequately prevent security breaches. The technology and other controls and processes designed to secure our confidential and proprietary information, detect and remedy any unauthorized access to that information were designed to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that such information is secure and that any unauthorized access is identified and addressed appropriately. Such controls may in the future fail to prevent or detect, unauthorized access to our confidential and proprietary information. In addition, the foregoing events could result in violations of applicable privacy and other laws. If confidential information is inappropriately accessed and used by a third party or an employee for illegal purposes, we may be responsible to the affected individuals for any losses they may have incurred as a result of misappropriation. In such an instance, we may also be subject to regulatory action, investigation or liable to a governmental authority for fines or penalties associated with a lapse in the integrity and security of our information systems.

We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to protect against and remedy any potential or existing security breaches and their consequences. A cyber-attack could also lead to litigation, fines, other remedial action, heightened regulatory scrutiny and diminished customer confidence. In addition, our remediation efforts may not be successful, and we may not have adequate insurance to cover these losses.

The unavailability of the information systems or the failure of these systems to perform as anticipated for any reason could disrupt our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Moreover, cyber-attacks against the Ukrainian government and other countries in the region have been reported in connection with the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine. To the extent such attacks have collateral effects on global critical infrastructure or financial institutions or us, such developments could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. It is difficult to assess the likelihood of such threat and any potential impact at this time.

Further, in March 2022, the SEC proposed amendments to its rules on cybersecurity risk management, strategy, governance, and incident disclosure. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would require us to report material cybersecurity incidents involving our information systems and periodic reporting regarding our policies and procedures to identify and manage cybersecurity risks, amongst other disclosures.

Companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny relating to their ESG policies. Investor advocacy groups, certain institutional investors, investment funds, lenders and other market participants are increasingly focused on ESG practices and in recent years have placed increasing importance on the implications and social cost of their investments. The increased focus and activism related to ESG and similar matters may hinder access to capital, as investors and lenders may decide to reallocate capital or to not commit capital as a result of their assessment of a company’s ESG practices. Companies which do not adapt to or comply with investor, lender or other industry shareholder expectations and standards, which are evolving, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately to the growing concern for ESG issues, regardless of whether there is a legal requirement to do so, may suffer from reputational damage, costs related to litigation, and the business, financial condition, and/or stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected.

In February 2021, the Acting Chair of the SEC issued a statement directing the Division of Corporation Finance to enhance its focus on climate-related disclosure in public company filings and in March 2021 the SEC announced the creation of a Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement (the “Task Force”). The Task Force’s goal is to develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct consistent with increased investor reliance on climate and ESG-related disclosure and investment. To implement the Task Force’s purpose, the SEC has taken several enforcement actions, with the first enforcement action taking place in May 2022, and promulgated new rules. On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed that all public companies are to include extensive climate-related information in their SEC filings. On May 25, 2022, SEC proposed a second set of rules aiming to curb the practice of "greenwashing" (i.e., making unfounded claims about one's ESG efforts) and would add proposed amendments to rules and reporting forms that apply to registered investment companies and advisers, advisers exempt from registration, and business development companies. As of the date of this annual report, these proposed rules have not yet taken effect.

We may face increasing pressures from investors, lenders and other market participants, who are increasingly focused on climate change, to prioritize sustainable energy practices, reduce our carbon footprint and promote sustainability. As a result, we may be required to implement more stringent ESG procedures or standards so that our existing and future investors and lenders remain invested in us and make further investments in us, especially given the highly focused and specific trade of crude oil transportation in which we are engaged. Such ESG corporate transformation calls for an increased resource allocation to serve the necessary changes in that sector, increasing costs and capital expenditure. If we do not meet these standards, our business and/or our ability to access capital could be harmed.

Additionally, certain investors and lenders may exclude fossil fuel-related companies, such as us, from their investing portfolios altogether due to environmental, social and governance factors. These limitations in both the debt and equity capital markets may affect our ability to grow as our plans for growth may include accessing the equity and debt capital markets. If those markets are unavailable, or if we are unable to access alternative means of financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be unable to implement our business strategy, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and impair our ability to service our indebtedness. Further, it is likely that we will incur additional costs and require additional resources to monitor, report and comply with wide ranging ESG requirements. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

See further details of our ESG efforts at Item 4.B.—Business Overview and our latest Environmental Social Governance Report, which may be found on our website at https://www.sflcorp.com/esg/. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report.

The offshore contract drilling industry is subject to the introduction of new drilling techniques and services using new technologies, some of which may be subject to patent protection. As competitors and others use or develop new technologies, we may be placed at a competitive disadvantage and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at substantial cost. In addition, competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to benefit from technological advantages and implement new technologies before we can. We may not be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us.

Our customers, in particular those in the oil industry, have a high and increasing focus on quality and compliance standards with their suppliers across the entire supply chain, including the shipping and transportation segment. Our continued compliance with these standards and quality requirements is vital for our operations. The charter hire 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 harbors, 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. More technologically advanced vessels have been built since the owned or leased vessels in our fleet, which have an average age of 10 years as of December 31, 2022, were constructed and vessels with further advancements may be built that are even more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives, including new vessels powered by alternative fuels or which are otherwise perceived as more environmentally friendly by charterers. We face competition from companies with more modern vessels having more fuel efficient designs than our vessels, or eco vessels, and if new vessels are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than the current eco vessels, competition from the current eco vessels and any more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charter hire payments we receive for our vessels and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. In these circumstances, we may also be forced to charter our vessels to less creditworthy charterers, either because the oil majors and other top tier charters will not charter older and less technologically advanced vessels or will only charter such vessels at lower contracted charter rates than we are able to obtain from these less creditworthy, second tier charterers. Similarly, technologically advanced vessels are needed to comply with environmental laws, the investment, in which along with the foregoing, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, charter hire payments, resale value of vessels, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Although most of our vessels are employed on medium or long-term charters, prolonged or significant downturns in the markets in which we operate could have a significant and adverse effect in finding new customers in the short and long term market and on our existing customers’ ability to continue to fulfill their obligations to us. It also affects the resale value of vessels.

The tanker market has historically been volatile. For example, we witnessed high chartering levels with the Baltic Exchange indices for the dry bulk and tanker markets hitting their highest levels since the mid-2000s. Global oil demand is expected to increase in 2023 with oil prices surpassing $100 per barrel. However, with continued uncertainty, there can be no assurance that the tanker market will sustain its recent rally.

While also experiencing volatility, the dry bulk shipping market has enjoyed significantly improved market conditions during 2021. Industry sources indicate that seaborne dry bulk trade (in tonnes) was limited in 2022, as a result of tightening monetary policy as well as weakness in China’s economy. The global fleet of dry bulk vessels has increased as a result of the delivery of numerous newbuilding orders over the past few years. During 2022, the global dry bulk fleet has grown by 2.8%, and as of February 1, 2023, newbuilding orders had been placed for an aggregate of about 7.2% of the existing global dry bulk fleet, with deliveries expected predominantly during the next two years. The dry bulk charter market, from which we derive and plan to continue to derive our revenues, has been relatively weak in 2022, with freight rates falling due to a combination of lower demand and easing of supply chain disruptions. In 2022, charter rates for dry bulk vessels decreased from 2021 levels but were sustained well above the historical average. The Baltic Dry Index, an index published by The Baltic Exchange of shipping rates for key dry bulk routes, softened from the decade highs of 2021, but still averaged 43% above the decade average, principally as a result of strong global growth and increased infrastructure spending which has led to an elevated demand for commodities. In January 2023, we saw spot rates fall to extremely low levels, following normal seasonal patterns as well as Chinese New Year, which has reduced industrial activity in the region. Market conditions are expected to gradually improve over the course of 2023 as China’s re-opening takes hold, however, we cannot guarantee a trend towards recovery. However, with continued uncertainty, there can be no assurance that the dry bulk charter market will realize recovery.

The containership charter market experienced significant volatility in 2022, with prices in the charter market for container ships gradually returning to ‘normal’ levels in September - October 2022, following an ease in port congestion. With easing port congestion, higher inflation, and the shift in spending from goods to services, global freight rates steeply declined in 2022, reaching pre-pandemic levels.

The offshore drilling charter market is correlated to the oil price (Brent crude spot) which has experienced significant volatility during the last decade. In April 2020 the oil price fell below $20 per barrel following fears that oil storage in the U.S. was running tight. As a consequence of these reductions in oil prices, oil and gas companies significantly reduced their exploration and development activities, resulting in many drilling companies laying up rigs and experiencing financial difficulties. However, oil prices averaged over $100 in 2022 and are expected to lie between $70 to $105 in 2023. The medium and long-term oil price development remains uncertain, with COVID-19 pandemic expected to continue to affect the global oil demand along with a structural transition in global energy systems with renewable energy expected to increase going forward. The effect on this related to the market is currently difficult to assess. Also, we have seen significant movement in oil price development since the geopolitical conflict between Russia and Ukraine began in February 2022.

For more information please see Item 5.D.—Trend Information.

The occurrence of one or more of these events could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay cash distributions.

In addition, because the market value of our vessels and rigs may fluctuate significantly, we may incur losses when we sell vessels, which may adversely affect earnings. If we sell vessels at a time when vessel prices have fallen and before we have recorded an impairment adjustment to our financial statements, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount in those financial statements, resulting in a loss and a reduction in earnings.

Our growth significantly depends on continued growth in worldwide and regional demand for the products we transport, such as dry bulk commodities (such as iron ore, coal, soybeans, etc.) and consumer and industrial products, which could be negatively affected by several factors, including declines in prices for such commodities and/or products, or general political, regulatory and economic conditions.

In past years, China and India have had two of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product and have been the main driving forces behind increases in shipping trade and the demand for marine transportation. While China in particular has enjoyed rates of economic growth significantly above the world average, slowing economic growth rates may reduce the country’s contribution to world trade growth. If economic growth declines in China, India and other countries in the Asia Pacific region, we may face decreases in shipping trade and demand. The level of imports to and exports from China may also be adversely affected by changes in political, economic and social conditions (including a slowing of economic growth) or other relevant policies of the Chinese government, such as changes in laws, regulations or export and import restrictions, internal political instability, changes in currency policies, changes in trade policies and territorial or trade disputes. Furthermore, a slowdown in the economies of the United States or the European Union, or certain other Asian countries may also have adverse impacts on economic growth in the Asia Pacific region. Therefore, a negative change in the economic conditions (including any negative changes resulting from any pandemic) of any of these countries or elsewhere may reduce demand for dry bulk and/or containership vessels and their associated charter rates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results, as well as our prospects.

More generally, various economies around the globe were impacted by inflationary pressures and/or supply chain disruptions in 2022, in part stemming from the conflict in Ukraine and related sanctions against Russia and Belarus and the COVID-19 pandemic and related containment efforts throughout the world. For example, demand for and the price of coal, a product which we transport from time to time, rose more than 250% in March 2022 as compared to the same period in the previous year. This was due to, among other factors, disruptions in natural gas supplies to the European Union as a result of tensions with Russia and the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions in various jurisdictions, which was accompanied by a surge in energy demand and, in some jurisdictions, a temporary shortage in available electrical capacity. The price of coal has since declined amid recessionary concerns regarding the global economy. The global economy currently remains and is expected to continue to remain subject to substantial uncertainty, which may impact demand for the products which we transport. Periods of low demand can cause excess vessel supply and intensify the competition in the industry, which often results in vessels being idle for long periods of time, which could reduce our revenues and materially harm the profitability of our segments, our business, results of operations and available cash.

The COVID-19 pandemic and measures to contain its spread have negatively impacted regional and global economies and trade patterns in markets in which we operate, the way we operate our business, and the businesses of our charterers and suppliers. These negative impacts could continue or worsen, even after the pandemic itself diminishes or ends. Companies, including us, have also taken precautions, such as requiring employees to work remotely and imposing travel restrictions, while some other businesses have been required to close entirely. Moreover, we face significant risks to our personnel and operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our crews face risk of exposure to COVID-19 as a result of travel to ports in which cases of COVID-19 have been reported. Our shore-based personnel likewise face risk of such exposure, as we maintain offices in areas that have been impacted by the spread of COVID-19.

Measures against COVID-19 in a number of countries have restricted crew rotations on our vessels, which may continue or become more severe. In 2022, we experienced and may continue to experience disruptions to our normal vessel operations caused by increased deviation time associated with positioning our vessels to countries in which we can undertake a crew rotation in compliance with measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Delays in crew rotations have led to issues with crew fatigue and may continue to do so, which may result in delays or other operational issues. We have had and expect to continue to have increased expenses due to incremental fuel consumption and days in which our vessels are unable to earn revenue in order to deviate to certain ports on which we would ordinarily not call during a typical voyage. We may also incur additional expenses associated with testing, personal protective equipment, quarantines, and travel expenses such as airfare costs in order to perform crew rotations in the current environment. In addition, any case of COVID-19 amongst crew, could result in a quarantine period for that vessel and, in turn, loss of charter hire and additional costs. In 2022, delays in crew rotations have also caused us to incur additional costs related to crew bonuses paid to retain the existing crew members on board and may continue to do so.

Moreover, COVID-19 and governmental and other measures related to it have led to a highly difficult environment in which to acquire and dispose of vessels given difficulty to physically inspect vessels. The impact of COVID-19 has also resulted in reduced industrial activity globally, and more specifically in China, with temporary closures of factories and other facilities, labor shortages and restrictions on travel.

This and future epidemics may affect personnel operating payment systems through which we receive revenues from the chartering of our vessels or pay for our expenses, resulting in delays in payments. We continue to focus on our employees' well-being, whilst making sure that their operations continue undisrupted and at the same time, adapting to the new ways of operating. As such employees are encouraged and in certain cases required to operate remotely which significantly increases the risk of cyber security attacks.

The occurrence or continued occurrence of any of the foregoing events or other epidemics or an increase in the severity or duration of the COVID-19 or other epidemics could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition, value of our vessels, and ability to pay dividends.

Our vessels and their cargoes are at risk of being damaged or lost due to events such as marine disasters, bad weather, mechanical failures, human error, environmental accidents, war, terrorism, piracy, political circumstances and hostilities in foreign countries, labor strikes and boycotts, changes in tax rates or policies, and governmental expropriation of our vessels. Any of these events may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters. There is a material risk of increased premiums or loss of coverage as a result of the geopolitical conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In the event of a vessel casualty or other catastrophic event, we will rely on the marine insurance policies to pay the insured value of the vessel or the damages incurred. Through the agreements with our vessel managers, we procure insurance for most of the vessels in our fleet employed under time and voyage charters against those risks that we believe the shipping industry commonly insures against. These include marine hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which include pollution risks and crew insurances, and war risk insurance. Currently, the amount of coverage for liability for pollution, spillage and leakage available to us on commercially reasonable terms through protection and indemnity associations and providers of excess coverage is $1.0 billion per vessel per occurrence, except for certain excluded areas at high risk including Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (the “High Risk Areas”).

We cannot assure you that we will be adequately insured against all risks. Our vessel managers may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our vessels in the future. For example, in the past more stringent environmental regulations have led to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. Additionally, our insurers may refuse to pay particular claims. For example, the circumstances of a spill, including non-compliance with environmental laws, could result in denial of coverage, protracted litigation, and delayed or diminished insurance recoveries or settlements. Any significant loss or liability for which we are not insured could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Under the terms of our bareboat charters, the charterer is responsible for procuring all insurances for the vessel.

We procure insurance for our fleet against risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to timely obtain a replacement vessel in the event of a loss. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage for tort liability. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which, although we believe are standard in the shipping industry, may nevertheless increase our costs. If our insurance is not enough to cover claims that may arise, the deficiency may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expenses to us.

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 lienholder may enforce its lien by “arresting” or “attaching” a vessel through judicial or foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt the cash flow of the charterer and/or our cash flow and require us to pay a significant amount of money to have the arrest lifted, which would have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, in jurisdictions where the “sister ship” theory of liability applies, such as South Africa, a claimant may arrest 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. In countries with “sister ship” liability laws, claims may be asserted against us or any of our vessels for liabilities of other vessels that we own.

A government of a vessel’s registry could requisition for title or seize one or more of our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Such government could also requisition one or more of 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 have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Governmental safety, environmental regulations or other equipment standards related to the age of tankers and other types of vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to our vessels to comply with safety or environmental laws or regulations that may be enacted in the future. These laws or regulations may also restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage or prohibit operation in certain geographic regions. We cannot predict what alterations or modifications our vessels may be required to undergo as a result of requirements that may be promulgated in the future, or that as our vessels age market conditions will justify any required expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

Our current business strategy includes additional growth through the acquisition of both newbuildings and second-hand vessels. While we rigorously inspect previously owned or secondhand vessels prior to purchase, this does not normally provide us with the same knowledge about their condition and cost of any required (or anticipated) repairs that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. A secondhand vessel may also have conditions or defects that we were not aware of when we bought the vessel and which may require us to incur costly repairs to the vessel. These repairs may require us to put a vessel into drydock, which would reduce our fleet utilization and increase our operating costs. The market prices of secondhand vessels also tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of new build vessels, and if we sell the vessels, the sales prices may not equal and could be less than their carrying values at that time. Therefore, our future operating results could be negatively affected if the vessels do not perform as we expect.

Delays in the delivery of any new-building or second-hand vessels we may agree to acquire in the future, would delay our receipt of revenues generated by these vessels and, to the extent we have arranged charter employment for these vessels, could possibly result in the cancellation of those charters, and therefore adversely affect our anticipated results of operations. Although this would delay our funding requirements for the installment payments to purchase these vessels, it would also delay our receipt of revenues under any charters we arrange for such vessels. The delivery of newbuilding vessels could be delayed, other than at our request, because of, among other things, work stoppages or other labor disturbances; bankruptcy or other financial crisis of the shipyard building the vessel; hostilities, health pandemics such as COVID-19 or political or economic disturbances in the countries where the vessels are being built, including any escalation of tensions involving North Korea; weather interference or catastrophic event, such as a major earthquake, tsunami or fire; our requests for changes to the original vessel specifications; requests from our customers, with whom we have arranged any charters for such vessels, to delay construction and delivery of such vessels due to weak economic conditions and shipping demand and a dispute with the shipyard building the vessel.

In addition, the refund guarantors under the newbuilding contracts, which are banks, financial institutions and other credit agencies, may also be affected by financial market conditions in the same manner as our lenders and, as a result, may be unable or unwilling to meet their obligations under their refund guarantees. If the shipbuilders or refund guarantors are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations to the sellers of the vessels, this may impact our acquisition of vessels and may materially and adversely affect our operations and our obligations under our credit facilities. The delivery of any secondhand vessels 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 financing or damage to or destruction of the vessels while being operated by the seller prior to the delivery date.

Any dividend that we declare is at the discretion of our board of directors of the Company (the “Board of Directors”). We cannot assure you that our dividend will not be reduced or eliminated in the future, and changes in our dividend policy could adversely affect the market price of our common shares. Our profitability and corresponding ability to pay dividends is substantially affected by amounts we receive through charter hire and profit-sharing payments from our charterers. Our entitlement to profit sharing payments, if any, is based on the financial performance of our vessels which is outside of our control. If our charter hire and profit-sharing payments decrease substantially, we may not be able to continue to pay dividends at present levels, or at all. We are also subject to contractual limitations on our ability to pay dividends pursuant to certain debt agreements, and we may agree to additional limitations in the future. Additional factors that could affect our ability to pay dividends include statutory and contractual limitations on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us, including under current or future debt arrangements, economic conditions, including the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and macroeconomic impacts on our business and financial condition, such as inflationary pressure, and other factors the Board of Directors may deem relevant.

During 2022, we had eight dry bulk carriers chartered to Golden Ocean Trading Limited, or the Golden Ocean Charterer, a subsidiary of Golden Ocean. Hemen, our largest shareholder, is also the largest shareholder of Golden Ocean. In addition, we own fully or partially 13 container vessels on long-term bareboat charters to MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and its affiliate Conglomerate Shipping Ltd. (“MSC”) and 16 container vessels on long-term time charters to Maersk A/S (“Maersk”), and multiple other assets chartered to a number of counterparties. Our other vessels that have charters attached to them are chartered to other customers under short, medium or long term time and bareboat charters.

The charter hire payments that we receive from our customers constitute substantially all of our operating cash flows.

The performance under the charters with the Golden Ocean Charterer is guaranteed by Golden Ocean. If the Golden Ocean Charterer or any of our other charterers are unable to make charter hire payments to us, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected and we may not have cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders and to repay our outstanding borrowings. A significant portion of our net income and operating cash flows are generated from our leases with the charterers of our drilling units, and a termination of these leases may have a material adverse effect on our earnings and profitability, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We have eight Capesize dry bulk carriers employed under time charters to the Golden Ocean Charterer. These charter contracts provide for base charter hire and additional profit-sharing payments when the Golden Ocean Charterer's earnings from deploying our vessels exceed certain levels. The majority of our vessels chartered to the Golden Ocean Charterer are sub-chartered by them in the spot market, which is subject to greater volatility than the long-term time charter market, and the amount of future profit sharing payments we receive, if any, will be primarily dependent on the strength of the spot market.

We cannot assure you that we will receive any profit-sharing payments for any periods in the future, which may have an adverse effect on our results and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends in the future.

We installed scrubbers on seven of the containerships on charter to Maersk in return for receiving a share of the fuel savings expected to be achieved by the charterer, Maersk thus as part of the charter agreements, we receive a share of the fuel savings, dependent on the price difference between IMO compliant fuel and IMO non-compliant fuel that is subsequently made compliant by the scrubbers.

We cannot assure you that we will receive any fuel saving payments for any periods in the future, which may have an adverse effect on our results and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends in the future.

We are generally prohibited from selling our vessels or drilling units during periods which they are subject to charters without the charterer's consent, and may therefore be unable to take advantage of increases in vessel or drilling unit values during such times. Conversely, if the charterers were to default under the charters due to adverse market conditions, causing a termination of the charters, it is likely that the charter-free market value of our vessels and drilling units would also be depressed. The charter-free market values of our vessels and drilling units have experienced high volatility in recent years.

The charter-free market value of our vessels and drilling units may increase and decrease depending on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the prevailing level of charter rates and day rates, general economic and market conditions affecting the international shipping and offshore drilling industries, types, sizes and ages of vessels and drilling units, supply and demand for vessels and drilling units, availability of or developments in other modes of transportation, competition from other shipping companies, cost of newbuildings, governmental or other regulations and technological advances.

In addition, as vessels and drilling units grow older, they generally decline in value. If the charter-free market values of our vessels and drilling units decline, we may not be in compliance with certain provisions of our credit facilities and we may not be able to refinance our debt, obtain additional financing or make distributions to our shareholders. Additionally, if we sell one or more of our vessels or drilling units at a time when vessel and drilling unit prices have fallen and before we have recorded an impairment adjustment to our consolidated financial statements, the sale price may be less than the vessel's or drilling unit's carrying value on our consolidated financial statements, resulting in a loss and a reduction in earnings. Furthermore, if vessel and drilling unit values fall significantly, we may have to record an impairment adjustment in our financial statements, which could adversely affect our financial results and condition.

Tanker charter rates also tend to be subject to seasonal variations, with demand (and therefore charter rates) normally higher in winter months in the northern hemisphere.

In addition, in depressed market conditions, our charterers and customers may no longer need a vessel or drilling unit that is currently under charter or contract, or may be able to obtain a comparable vessel or drilling unit at a lower rate. As a result, charterers and customers may seek to renegotiate the terms of their existing charter parties and drilling contracts, or avoid their obligations under those contracts. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under agreements with us, we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Certain of our directors, executive officers and major shareholders may have interests that are different from, or are in addition to, the interests of our other shareholders. In particular, Hemen and certain related companies whose shares are indirectly held by two trusts settled by Mr. John Fredriksen for the benefit of his family, own and beneficially own approximately 18.6% of our issued and outstanding common shares as of March 14, 2023.

Hemen is also a principal shareholder of a number of other large publicly traded companies involved in various sectors of the shipping and oil services industries (the “Hemen Related Companies”). In addition, certain directors, including Mr. Cordia, Mr. O'Shaughnessy and Ms. Kathrine Fredriksen, also serve on the boards of one or more of the Hemen Related Companies, including but not limited to Frontline plc (formerly Frontline Ltd.) (NYSE: FRO) (“Frontline”), Golden Ocean Group Limited (NYSE: GOGL) (“Golden Ocean”), Archer Limited (OSE: ARCHER), Avance Gas Holding Ltd (OSE: AGAS), Northern Drilling Ltd (OSE: NODL) and ST Energy Transition I Ltd. (NYSE: STET.U). There may be real or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting Hemen and other Hemen Related Companies whose interests in some circumstances may be adverse to our interests.

To the extent that we do business with or compete with other Hemen Related Companies for business opportunities, prospects or financial resources, or participate in ventures in which other Hemen Related Companies may participate, these directors and officers may face actual or apparent conflicts of interest in connection with decisions that could have different implications for us. These decisions may relate to corporate opportunities, corporate strategies, potential acquisitions of businesses, newbuilding acquisitions, inter-company agreements, the issuance or disposition of securities, the election of new or additional directors and other matters. Such potential conflicts may delay or limit the opportunities available to us, and it is possible that conflicts may be resolved in a manner adverse to us or result in agreements that are less favorable to us than terms that would be obtained in arm's-length negotiations with unaffiliated third-parties.

The charters, management agreements, charter ancillary agreements and the other contractual agreements we have with companies affiliated with Hemen were made in the context of an affiliated relationship. Although every effort was made to ensure that such agreements were made on an arm's-length basis, the negotiation of these agreements may have resulted in prices and other terms that are less favorable to us than terms we might have obtained in arm's-length negotiations with unaffiliated third parties for similar services.

While Frontline and Golden Ocean, whose major shareholder is Hemen, have agreed to cause Key Chartering Corporation (“Key Chartering”), Golden Ocean Group Management and the Golden Ocean Charterer, respectively, to use their commercial best efforts to employ our vessels on market terms and not to give preferential treatment in the marketing of any other vessels owned or managed by Frontline and Golden Ocean or its other affiliates, it is possible that conflicts of interests in this regard will adversely affect us. Under the agreements with the Golden Ocean Charterer, we are entitled to receive quarterly profit sharing payments to the extent that the average daily time charter equivalent ("TCE"), rates realized by the Golden Ocean Charterer exceed specified levels. Because Golden Ocean also owns or manages other vessels in addition to our fleet, which are not included in the profit sharing calculations, conflicts of interest may arise between us and Golden Ocean in the allocation of chartering opportunities that could limit our fleet's earnings and reduce profit sharing payments or charter hire due under our charters.

Holders of our common shares and other securities have no direct right to enforce the obligations of related and non-related customers under the charters, or any of the other agreements to which we are a party. Accordingly, if any of those counterparties were to breach their obligations to us under any of these agreements, our shareholders would have to rely on us to pursue our remedies against those counterparties.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a "passive foreign investment company," or ("PFIC"), for United States federal income tax purposes if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of "passive income" or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation's assets produce or are held for the production of those types of "passive income". For purposes of these tests, "passive income" includes dividends, interest and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties, which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute "passive income", but income from bareboat charters does constitute "passive income".

United States shareholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous United States federal income tax regime with respect to the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

Under these rules, if our income from our time charters is considered to be passive rental income, rather than income from the performance of services, we will be considered to be a PFIC. We believe that it is more likely than not that our income from time charters will not be treated as passive rental income for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. Correspondingly, we believe that the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of such income do not constitute passive assets for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. This position is principally based upon the positions that (1) our time charter income will constitute services income, rather than rental income, and (2) Golden Ocean Management, which provide services to certain of our time chartered vessels, will be respected as separate entities from the Golden Ocean Charterer, with which they are affiliated. Based on our current and anticipated chartering activities, we do not believe that we will be treated as a PFIC for the current or future taxable years, although no assurance can be given in this regard.

Although there is no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our method of operation, there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and the United States Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS"), pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, it should be noted that there is also authority that characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept our position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in the nature and extent of our operations.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our United States shareholders will face adverse United States federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those shareholders make an election available under United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed below under "Taxation-United States Federal Income Tax Considerations"), such shareholders would be liable to pay United States federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the shareholder's holding period of our common shares.

Under the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves and our subsidiaries, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States, may be subject to a 4% United States 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.

We believe that we and each of our subsidiaries qualified for this statutory tax exemption for our taxable year ending on December 31, 2022 and we will take this position for United States federal income tax return reporting purposes. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption for future taxable years and thereby become subject to United States federal income tax on our United States source shipping income. For example, we would no longer qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for a particular taxable year if certain non-qualified shareholders with a 5% or greater interest in our common shares owned, in the aggregate, 50% or more of our outstanding common shares for more than half the days during the taxable year. It is possible that we could be subject to this rule for our taxable year ending on or after December 31, 2023. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, there can be no assurances on our tax-exempt status or that of any of our subsidiaries.

If we or our subsidiaries, are not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, we, or our subsidiaries, could be subject during those years to an effective 2% United States federal income tax on gross shipping income derived during such a year that is attributable to the transport of cargoes to or from the United States. The imposition of this tax would have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

The Economic Substance Act 2018 and the Economic Substance Regulations 2018 of Bermuda (the “Economic Substance Act” and the “Economic Substance Regulations”, respectively) became operative on December 31, 2018. The Economic Substance Act applies to every registered entity in Bermuda that engages in a relevant activity and requires that every such entity shall maintain a substantial economic presence in Bermuda. Relevant activities for the purposes of the Economic Substance Act are banking business, insurance business, fund management business, financing and leasing business, headquarters business, shipping business, distribution and service center business, intellectual property holding business and conducting business as a holding entity.

The Bermuda Economic Substance Act provides that a registered entity that carries on a relevant activity complies with economic substance requirements if (a) it is directed and managed in Bermuda, (b) its core income-generating activities (as may be prescribed) are undertaken in Bermuda with respect to the relevant activity, (c) it maintains adequate physical presence in Bermuda, (d) it has adequate full time employees in Bermuda with suitable qualifications and (e) it incurs adequate operating expenditure in Bermuda in relation to the relevant activity.

A registered entity that carries on a relevant activity is obliged under the Bermuda Economic Substance Act to file a declaration in the prescribed form (the “Declaration”) with the Registrar of Companies (the “Registrar”) on an annual basis.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the Bermuda Economic Substance Act or any similar law applicable to us in any other jurisdictions, we could be subject to financial penalties and spontaneous disclosure of information to foreign tax officials in related jurisdictions and may be struck from the register of companies in Bermuda or such other jurisdiction. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If any of our charters terminate, we may not be able to re-charter those vessels on a long-term basis with terms similar to the terms of our existing charters, or at all.

The vessels in our fleet that have charters attached to them are generally contracted to a firm period of up to 2034 in addition to certain optional periods. However, we have granted some of our charterers purchase or early termination options that, if exercised, may effectively terminate our charters with these customers at an earlier date. One or more of the charters with respect to our vessels may also terminate in the event of a requisition for title or a loss of a vessel.

Under our vessel management agreements with Golden Ocean Management, for fixed management fees, Golden Ocean Management are responsible for all of the technical and operational management of the vessels chartered by the Golden Ocean Charterer, respectively, and will indemnify us against certain loss of hire and various other liabilities relating to the operation of these vessels. If the relevant charter is terminated, the corresponding management agreement will also be terminated.

Therefore, to the extent that we acquire additional vessels, our cash flow could be more volatile in the future and we could be exposed to increases in our vessel and rig operating expenses, each of which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business.

The charter-free market values of our vessels and drilling units are expected to change from time to time depending on a number of factors including general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping and offshore industries, competition, cost of vessel or drilling unit construction, governmental or other regulations, prevailing levels of charter rates and technological changes. We have granted fixed price purchase options to certain of our customers with respect to the vessels and drilling units they have chartered from us, and these prices may be less than the respective vessel's or drilling unit’s charter-free market value at the time the option may be exercised. In addition, we may not be able to obtain a replacement vessel or drilling unit for the price at which we sell the vessel or drilling unit. In such a case, we could incur a loss and a reduction in earnings.

The publication of U.S. Dollar LIBOR for the one-week and two-month U.S. Dollar LIBOR tenors ceased on December 31, 2021, and the ICE Benchmark Administration, the administrator of LIBOR, with the support of the United States Federal Reserve and the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, announced the publication of all other U.S. Dollar LIBOR tenors will cease on June 30, 2023. The United States Federal Reserve concurrently issued a statement advising banks to cease issuing U.S. Dollar LIBOR instruments after 2021. As such, any new loan agreements we enter into will not use LIBOR as an interest rate, and we will need to transition our existing loan agreements from U.S. Dollar LIBOR to an alternative reference rate prior to June 2023.

Our financing agreements contain a provision requiring or permitting us to enter into negotiations with our lenders to agree to an alternative interest rate or an alternative basis for determining the interest rate in anticipation of the cessation of LIBOR. These clauses present significant uncertainties as to how alternative reference rates or alternative bases for determination of rates would be agreed upon, as well as the potential for disputes or litigation with our lenders regarding the appropriateness or comparability to LIBOR of any substitute indices, such as SOFR, and any credit adjustment spread between the two benchmarks. In the absence of an agreement between us and our lenders, most of our financing agreements provide that LIBOR would be replaced with some variation of the lenders’ cost-of-funds rate. The discontinuation of LIBOR presents a number of risks to our business, including volatility in applicable interest rates among our financing agreements, potential increased borrowing costs for future financing agreements or unavailability of or difficulty in attaining financing, which could in turn have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

Some of our credit facilities use variable interest rates and expose us to interest rate risk. If interest rates increase and we are unable to effectively hedge our interest rate risk, our debt service obligations on the variable rate indebtedness would increase even if the amount borrowed remained the same, and our profitability and cash available for servicing our indebtedness would decrease.

As of December 31, 2022, we and our consolidated subsidiaries had approximately $1.5 billion in floating rate debt outstanding under our credit facilities. Although we use interest rate swaps to manage our interest rate exposure and have interest rate adjustment clauses in some of our chartering agreements, we are exposed to fluctuations in interest rates. For a portion of our floating rate debt, if interest rates rise, interest payments on our floating rate debt that we have not swapped into effectively fixed rates would increase.

In order to manage our exposure to interest rate fluctuations under LIBOR, SOFR or any other alternative rate, we have and may from time to time use interest rate derivatives to effectively fix some of our floating rate debt obligations. No assurance can however be given that the use of these derivative instruments, if any, may effectively protect us from adverse interest rate movements. The use of interest rate derivatives may affect our results through mark to market valuation of these derivatives. Also, adverse movements in interest rate derivatives may require us to post cash as collateral, which may impact our free cash position. Interest rate derivatives may also be impacted by the transition from LIBOR to SOFR or other alternative rates.

As of December 31, 2022, we and our consolidated subsidiaries have entered into interest rate swaps which fix the interest on approximately $0.6 billion of our outstanding indebtedness.

An increase in interest rates could cause us to incur additional costs associated with our debt service, which may materially and adversely affect our results of operations. Our maximum exposure to interest rate fluctuations on our outstanding debt as of December 31, 2022 was approximately $1.0 billion, including our equity-accounted subsidiaries. A one percentage change in interest rates would, based on our estimates, increase or decrease interest rate exposure by approximately $9.8 million per year as of December 31, 2022. The figure does not take into account that certain of our charter contracts include interest adjustment clauses, whereby the charter rate is adjusted to reflect the actual interest paid on a deemed outstanding debt related to the assets on charter. As of December 31, 2022, $0.1 billion was subject to such interest adjustment clauses, including our equity-accounted subsidiaries. None of this was subject to interest rate swaps and the balance of $0.1 billion remained on a floating rate basis. Our net exposure to floating rate debt is therefore $903.7 million.

The interest rate swaps that have been entered into by us and our subsidiaries are derivative financial instruments that effectively translate floating rate debt into fixed rate debt. US GAAP requires that these derivatives be valued at current market prices in our financial statements, with increases or decreases in valuations reflected in results of operations or, if the instrument is designated as a hedge, in other comprehensive income. Changes in interest rates give rise to changes in the valuations of interest rate swaps and could adversely affect results of operations and other comprehensive income.

Our liquidity may be affected during the period of the swap contracts arising from the requirement to pay collateral if current interest rates move significantly adversely compared to the swap interest rates. This could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, depending on the magnitude of the fluctuation.

As of December 31, 2022, we had approximately $202.0 million equivalent in senior unsecured bonds denominated in Norwegian kroner (“NOK”). Although the effect on profitability is managed through the use of currency swaps, liquidity may be affected during the period of the swap contracts arising from the requirement to pay collateral if the NOK currency rates move adversely compared to the United States dollar (“USD”). This could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, depending on the magnitude of the currency fluctuation.

Since our original acquisitions from Frontline, we have expanded and diversified our fleet, and we are performing certain administrative services through our wholly-owned subsidiaries SFL Management AS, SFL Management (Bermuda) Limited, SFL Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, LH Rig Management (Cyprus) Ltd and SFL UK Management Ltd.

We intend to continue to expand our fleet. We continuously evaluate potential transactions, which may include pursuit of other business combinations, the acquisition of vessels or related businesses, the expansion of our operations, repayment of existing debt, share repurchases, short term investments or other transactions that we believe will be accretive to earnings, enhance shareholder value or are in our best interests. Our future growth will primarily depend on our ability to locate and acquire suitable assets or businesses, identify and consummate acquisitions or joint ventures, obtain required financing, integrate any acquired vessels and drilling units with our existing operations, enhance our customer base, and manage our expansion.

The growth in the size and diversity of our fleet will continue to impose additional responsibilities on our management, and may present numerous risks, such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in recruiting additional qualified personnel and managing relationships with customers and suppliers, and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in executing our growth plans or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection with our future growth.

We have significant indebtedness outstanding under our senior unsecured convertible notes and our NOK senior unsecured bonds. We have also entered into loan facilities that we have used to refinance existing indebtedness and to acquire additional vessels. We may need to refinance some or all of our indebtedness on maturity of our convertible notes, bonds or loan facilities and to acquire additional vessels in the future. We cannot assure you that we will be able to do so on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we cannot refinance our indebtedness, we will have to dedicate some or all of our cash flows, and we may be required to sell some of our assets, to pay the principal and interest on our indebtedness. In such a case, we may not be able to pay dividends to our shareholders and may not be able to grow our fleet as planned. We may also incur additional debt in the future.

Under the terms of our loan facilities, we may not make distributions to our shareholders if we do not satisfy these covenants or receive waivers from the lenders. We cannot assure you that we will be able to satisfy these covenants in the future.

Due to these restrictions, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders' interests may be different from ours and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain our lenders' permission when needed. This may prevent us from taking actions that are in our best interests.

Our debt service obligations require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations to required payments on indebtedness and could limit our ability to obtain additional financing, make capital expenditures and acquisitions, and carry out other general corporate activities in the future. These obligations may also limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the shipping industry or detract from our ability to successfully withstand a downturn in our business or the economy generally. This may place us at a competitive disadvantage to other less leveraged competitors.

Furthermore, our debt agreements, including our bond agreements, contain cross-default provisions that may be triggered by a default under one of our other debt agreements. The cross default provisions imply that a failure by us as guarantor or issuer, to pay any financial indebtedness above certain thresholds when due, or within any applicable grace period, could result in a default under our other debt agreements.

The occurrence of any event of default, or our inability to obtain a waiver from our lenders in the event of a default, could result in certain or all of our indebtedness being accelerated or the foreclosure of the liens on our vessels by our lenders. If our secured indebtedness is accelerated in full or in part, it would be very difficult in the current financing environment for us to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing and we could lose our vessels and other assets securing our credit facilities if our lenders foreclose their liens, which would adversely affect our ability to conduct our business.

Moreover, in connection with any waivers of or amendments to our credit facilities that we have obtained, or may obtain in the future, our lenders may impose additional operating and financial restrictions on us or modify the terms of our existing credit facilities. These restrictions may further restrict our ability to, among other things, pay dividends, make capital expenditures or incur additional indebtedness, including through the issuance of guarantees. Our lenders may also require the payment of additional fees, require prepayment of a portion of our indebtedness to them, accelerate the amortization schedule for our indebtedness and increase the interest rates they charge us on our outstanding indebtedness. See "Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects - B. Liquidity and Capital Resources".

In addition, under the terms of our credit facilities, our payment of dividends or other payments to shareholders as well as our subsidiaries' payment of dividends to us is subject to no event of default having occurred. See "Item 8. Financial Information -Dividend Policy".

We may be, from time to time, involved in various litigation matters. These matters may include, among other things, contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or duties, and other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. Although we intend to defend these matters vigorously, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any claim or other litigation matter, and the ultimate outcome of any litigation or the potential costs to resolve them may have a material adverse effect on us. Insurance may not be applicable or sufficient in all cases and/or insurers may not remain solvent, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries own all of our vessels and drilling units, and payments under our charter agreements are made to our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to make distributions to our shareholders depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of a subsidiary to make these distributions could be affected by a claim or other action by a third party or by the law of its respective jurisdiction of incorporation which regulates the payment of dividends by companies. Under the terms of our credit facilities, we may be restricted from making distributions from our subsidiaries if they are not in compliance with the terms of the relevant agreements. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, we may not be able to pay dividends to our shareholders.

The market price of our common shares has been volatile. For the year ended December 31, 2022, the closing market price of our common shares ranged from a high of $11.49 on May 16, 2022, to a low of $7.99 on January 24, 2022. The market price of our common shares may continue to fluctuate due to factors such as actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly and annual results and those of other public companies in our industry, changes in key management personnel, any reductions in the payment of our dividends or changes in our dividend policy, mergers and strategic alliances in the shipping and offshore industries, market conditions in the shipping and offshore industries, changes in government regulation, shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecast by securities analysts, perceived or actual inability by our chartering counterparts to fully perform under the charter parties, including the charterers of our drilling units and third party announcements concerning us or our competitors and the general state of the securities market. The shipping and offshore industries have been highly unpredictable and volatile. The market for common shares in these industries may be equally volatile. The market volatility in equities remains high. Therefore, we cannot assure you that you will be able to sell any of our common shares you may have purchased at a price greater than or equal to its original purchase price, also when adjusted for any dividends. Additionally, to the extent that the price of our common shares declines, our ability to raise funds through the issuance of equity, or otherwise using our common shares as consideration, will be reduced.

It has been recently observed that worldwide economies have experienced inflationary pressures, with price increases seen across many sectors globally. For example, the U.S. consumer price index, an inflation gauge that measures costs across dozens of items, rose 6.5% in December 2022 compared to the prior year, driven in large part by increases in energy costs. It remains to be seen whether inflationary pressures will continue, and to what degree, as central banks begin to respond to price increases. In the event that inflation becomes a significant factor in the global economy generally and in the shipping industry more specifically, inflationary pressures would result in increased operating, voyage and administrative costs. Furthermore, the effects of inflation on the supply and demand of the products we transport could alter demand for our services. Interventions in the economy by central banks in response to inflationary pressures may slow down economic activity, including by altering consumer purchasing habits and reducing demand for the commodities and products we carry, and cause a reduction in trade. As a result, the volumes of goods we deliver and/or charter rates for our vessels may be affected. Any of these factors could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and operating results.

The market price of our common shares could decline due to sales of a large number of our shares in the market or the perception that such sales could occur or conversion of our convertible notes. This could depress the market price of our common shares and make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate, or at all.

We are a Bermuda exempted company. Our Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws and the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended, govern our affairs. Investors may have more difficulty in protecting their interests and enforcing judgments in the face of actions by our management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a United States jurisdiction. Under Bermuda law a director generally owes a fiduciary duty only to the company and not to the company's shareholders. Our shareholders may not have a direct course of action against our directors. In addition, Bermuda law does not provide a mechanism for our shareholders to bring a class action lawsuit under Bermuda law. Further, our Bye-laws provide for the indemnification of our directors or officers against any liability arising out of any act or omission except for an act or omission constituting fraud, dishonesty or illegality.

Our executive offices, administrative activities and the majority of our assets are located outside the United States. In addition, most of our directors and officers are not United States residents. As a result, it may be more difficult for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us, or to enforce both in the United States and outside the United States judgments against us in any action, including actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the United States federal securities laws.

We are SFL Corporation Ltd. a Bermuda-based company incorporated in Bermuda on October 10, 2003, as a Bermuda exempted company under the Bermuda Companies Law of 1981 (Company No. EC-34296). We are engaged primarily in the ownership and operation of vessels and offshore related assets, and also involved in the charter, purchase and sale of assets. Our registered and principal executive offices are located at Par-la-Ville Place, 14 Par-la-Ville Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda, and our telephone number is +1 (441) 295-9500. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of the SEC’s internet site is www.sec.gov. None of the information contained on these websites is incorporated into or forms a part of this annual report.

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

We are an international ship owning and chartering company with a large and diverse asset base across the maritime, shipping and offshore asset classes and business sectors. As of December 31, 2022, our assets consist of 10 crude oil tankers, 15 dry bulk carriers, 32 container vessels (including seven leased-in container vessels), three car carriers, one jack-up drilling rig, one ultra-deepwater drilling unit, two chemical tankers, and six oil product tankers, as well as four car carriers under construction and expected for delivery in 2023 and 2024, included in our wholly owned subsidiaries. We also partly own four leased-in container vessels in our associated companies.

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

We were formed in 2003 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Frontline, a major operator of large crude oil tankers. In 2004, Frontline distributed 25% of our common shares to its ordinary shareholders in a partial spin off, and our common shares commenced trading on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, under the ticker symbol "SFL" on June 14, 2004. Frontline subsequently made six further dividends of our shares to its shareholders and its ownership in our Company is now less than one percent. Our assets at the time consisted of a fleet of Suezmax tankers, very large crude carriers (“VLCCs”), and oil/bulk/ore carriers.

Since 2004, we have diversified our asset base and now have eight asset types, which comprise crude oil tankers, chemical tankers, oil product tankers, container vessels, car carriers, dry bulk carriers, a jack-up drilling rig and an ultra-deepwater drilling unit. In addition, we have certain financial investments.

In the year ended December 31, 2022, we took delivery of the following vessels:

In the year ended December 31, 2022, we disposed of the following vessels and drilling units:

In January and February 2022, we drew down the remaining $71.5 million on the previously secured $107.3 million financing facility in conjunction with the delivery of two Suezmax tankers. The facility bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin and has a term of approximately five years.

In March 2022, we drew down $100.0 million for the financing of four LR2 product tankers. The facility bears interest at the compounded daily SOFR plus a margin and has a term of approximately five years.

In September 2022, we drew down $23.0 million for the refinancing of our two Kamsarmax bulk carriers. The facility bears interest at the compounded daily SOFR plus a margin and has a term of approximately one year.

In September 2022, we secured a $115.0 million loan facility for the refinancing of the eight Capesize bulk carriers, on charter to Golden Ocean, a related party. The facility bears interest at the compounded daily SOFR plus a margin and has a term of approximately three years.

Also in September 2022, we secured a $290.0 million a loan facility. The facility served as a temporary source of finance for vessel acquisitions, with a term of approximately six months. The facility was partly repaid in 2022 and the remaining amount was fully repaid in February 2023.

In February 2023, we drew down $144.6 million for the financing of four Suezmax tankers. The facility bears interest at the compounded daily SOFR plus a margin and has a term of approximately three years.

In February 2022, we awarded a total of 435,000 options to officers, employees and directors, pursuant to our share option scheme (the “Share Option Scheme”). The options have a five-year term and a three-year vesting period and the first options will be exercisable from February 2023 onwards. The initial strike price was $8.73 per share.

In February 2023, we awarded a total of 440,000 options to employees, officers and directors, pursuant to our Share Option Scheme. The options have a five-year term and a three-year vesting period and the first options will be exercisable from February 2024 onwards. The initial strike price was $10.34 per share.

In March 2022, we agreed to charter six 14,000 TEU container vessels to a leading container operator for a fixed period of approximately five years. The new charter is expected to commence between 2023 and 2024 when the vessels are redelivered following completion of their existing charter party to another Asian based liner company.

On April 12, 2022, the Board of Directors authorized a renewal of our dividend reinvestment plan, or DRIP, to facilitate investments by individual and institutional shareholders who wish to invest dividend payments received on shares owned, or other cash amounts, in SFL’s common shares on a regular or one time basis, or otherwise. On April 15, 2022, SFL filed a registration statement on Form F-3ASR (Registration No. 333-237971) to register the sale of up to 10,000,000 common shares pursuant to the DRIP. If certain waiver provisions in the DRIP are requested and granted pursuant to the terms of the plan, we may grant additional share sales to investors, from time to time, up to the amount registered under the plan.

In May 2020, we entered into an equity distribution agreement with BTIG LLC ("BTIG") under which the Company may, from time to time, offer and sell new ordinary shares having aggregate sales proceeds of up to $100.0 million through an ATM. In April 2022, we entered into an Amended and Restated ATM with BTIG. Under this agreement, the prior ATM established in May 2020 was terminated and replaced with a renewed ATM program, under which we may continue to offer and sell new common shares having aggregate sales proceeds of up to $100.0 million, from time to time through BTIG.

No new common shares were issued and sold under the DRIP and ATM arrangements during the year ended December 31, 2022. As of March 16, 2023, we have issued and sold a cumulative total of 19.2 million shares under these DRIP and ATM arrangements since launch.

On May 12, 2022, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.22 per share, which was paid in cash on June 29, 2022 to shareholders of record as of June 15, 2022.

On August 17, 2022, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.23 per share, which was paid in cash on September 29, 2022 to shareholders of record as of September 15, 2022.

On November 14, 2022, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.23 per share, which was paid in cash on December 29, 2022 to shareholders of record as of December 14, 2022.

On February 15, 2023, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.24 per share which will be paid in cash on or around March 30, 2023 to shareholders of record as of March 15, 2023.

On July 1, 2022, the Company announced the appointment of Mr. Will Homan-Russell as a director of the Company. Mr. Homan-Russell is an experienced professional investor in the maritime sector, currently serving as Chief Investment Officer of UK based WMC Capital Ltd., where he co-founded Albemarle Shipping Fund. From 2003 to 2018 he worked for Tufton Oceanic Limited, a fund management company specializing on investments in the maritime and energy sectors. Mr. Homan-Russell holds an MA in Mathematics from Oxford University and an MSc. in Finance from London Business School.

In November 2022, MSPC Certified Public Accountants and Advisors, P.C. (“MSPC”), the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, notified us of its decision not to stand for re-appointment as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023. Our audit committee (the “Audit Committee”) has selected and intends to appoint Ernst & Young (“EY”) as the successor independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2023. Please refer to “Item 16F. Change in Registrant's Certifying Accountant” for further information.

Since the beginning of the calendar year 2020, efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 have caused restrictions on the movement of people and affected business operations worldwide including, but not limited to, supply chains, trade, employees (including the risk of sickness and crew change restrictions), travel including port restrictions and border closures, financial markets and commodity prices. The Company’s business has been and may continue to be materially and adversely affected by this pandemic and the Company is unable to reasonably predict the estimated length or severity of the COVID-19 pandemic on future operating results.

In response to the pandemic, many countries, ports and organizations, including those where the Company conducts a large part of its operations, implemented measures to combat the pandemic, such as quarantines and travel restrictions. Though these measures have in large part been relaxed, to the extent governments determine to reinstate similar measures in the future as a result of any resurgence or worsening of the pandemic in the wake of the spread of variants and subvariants of COVID-19, this could cause severe trade disruptions. The extent to which COVID-19 will impact the Company's results of operations and financial condition, including possible vessel impairments, will depend on future developments including, among others, new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the virus and any variants and subvariants thereof, any resurgence of the virus, the actions to contain or treat its impact, others and the length of time that the pandemic continues and whether subsequent waves of the infection happen, including as a result of vaccination rates among the population, the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the response by governmental bodies and regulators.

As of March 16, 2023, the Company is still experiencing some degree of crew change logistical challenges in connection with the COVID-19 outbreak. There are still several jurisdictions that limit and/or prohibit the change of crew resulting in continuing higher operating costs and time delays.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has disrupted supply chains and caused instability in the global economy, and the United States and the European Union, among other countries, announced sanctions against the Russian government and its supporters. OFAC administers and enforces multiple authorities under which sanctions have been imposed on Russia, including: the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities sanctions program, established by the Russia-related national emergency declared in Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 and subsequently expanded and addressed through certain additional authorities, and the Ukraine-/Russia-related sanctions program, established with the Ukraine-related national emergency declared in E.O. 13660 and subsequently expanded and addressed through certain additional authorities. The United States has also issued several Executive Orders that prohibit certain transactions related to Russia, including the importation of certain energy products of Russian Federation origin, investments in the Russian energy sector by U.S. persons, among other prohibitions and export controls. The ongoing conflict could result in the imposition of further economic sanctions or new categories of export restrictions against persons in or connected to Russia. As of March 16, 2023, the Company’s charter contracts have not been materially affected by the events in Russia and Ukraine. However, it is possible that in the future third parties, with whom the Company has or will have charter contracts, may be impacted by such events. While in general much uncertainty remains regarding the global impact of the conflict in Ukraine, it is possible that such tensions could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.

In light of the current and foreseeable economic environment, significant global inflationary pressures could increase the Company's operating, voyage, general and administrative and financing costs. Historically shipping companies are accustomed to navigating in shipping downturns, coping with inflationary pressures and monitoring costs to preserve the liquidity, as they typically encourage suppliers and service providers to lower rates and prices.

We therefore assume inflation in all of our investment decisions and attempt to mitigate cost inflation. We constantly monitor our fleet’s cost levels and employ a pool of different suppliers for the same services to get competitive pricing on services. However, there are no assurances that the effects of inflation would not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.

 

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

SFL relies on the SASB framework for our sector to facilitate the monitoring of material ESG issues. We strive to incorporate the UN Global Compact Principles in our operations in general, as well as in our ESG management system, as more fully described below.

We have carried out a materiality analysis in order to aid us in prioritizing our sustainability efforts. Our review of potentially material topics followed the GRI Materiality Standard (GRI 3, 2021), considering the severity and likelihood of the impacts of our operations. Our ESG priorities also take into consideration those which are financially material, and we are guided by the SASB Marine Transportation Standard (2018) in this regard. The following topics have been considered by the Board of Directors and are deemed material for inclusion in the ESG report:

We have established specific targets for the material areas pinpointed in the assessment described above. In particular, SFL will continue to develop its strategy to address direct emissions and associated climate-related risks.

Our Corporate Code of Business Ethics and Conduct is established by the Board of Directors. The Board works to ensure that we have sufficient internal control and risk management systems in place, which encompass our corporate values and ethical guidelines, including the guidelines for corporate social responsibility. The Board routinely considers critical ESG issues, and in line with our Code of Conduct any significant incidents are reported directly to the Board. The Board also reviews our annual ESG report, which sets forth our ESG strategy and goals, and report on our ESG performance across all our business operations. All of our ESG Reports may be found on our website at https://www.sflcorp.com/esg/. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report.

Together with other Hemen Related Companies such as Avance Gas, Flex LNG, Frontline and Golden Ocean, we have established an ESG forum, the goal of which is to design industry leading approaches to ESG risk management and reporting parameters.

We also support the following initiatives: The Neptune Declaration on Seafarer Wellbeing and Crew Change, the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (“MACN”), the Clean Shipping Alliance, and the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (“Intertanko”). We also comply with the requirements of Oil Companies International Marine Forum (“OCIMF”).

At SFL, we are examining ways to manage our environmental impact. in order to better protect the environment, the sector, our customers and our own business. Our Environmental Policy describes our commitment to environmental due diligence and how spills and operational emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, waste and other discharges are to be managed.

We see decarbonisation as a strategic priority going forward; this addresses our direct emissions, climate-related risks of regulatory changes, evolving expectations from our customers, as well as access to cost efficient capital. The energy mix in our fleet is dependent on available technologies.

We believe that providing safe and healthy labour conditions, a supportive environment and opportunities for employees to develop within the Company are key to the well-being of our staff and fundamental to the long-term success of SFL.

In addition to securing our workers’ health and safety, we seek to ensure that our employees, onshore and offshore, are working under conditions that meet the requirements set out in the International Labour Conventions and the Maritime Labour Convention. As part of safeguarding seafarers labour rights, these conventions include the right to collective bargaining agreements, and that no employee is discriminated based on nationality, race or any other basis.

Our policies prohibit discrimination against any employee or any other person on the basis of sex, race, colour, age, religion, sexual preference, marital status, national origin, disability, ancestry, political opinion, or any other basis. We are an international company with shipboard employees from across the world. While our shipboard employees are predominantly male, women make up approximately 50% of our onshore employees.

We are committed to respecting and protecting internationally recognized human rights as laid out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGP”). We are an international company with suppliers from all over the world. We strive to have and update the necessary policies, due diligence processes and access to remedy in line with the UNGP.

SFL has a risk-based approach to compliance and has established policies and procedures which clearly set out how we manage ESG issues. These policies and procedures which are regularly reviewed and updated (as necessary), mitigates our risks and any negative ESG impacts. Our ESG management system is complemented by annual risk assessments, integrity due diligence, training of employees, third party audits, internal systems and controls – such as internal compliance testing, remediation and investigations. Each year, we conduct a full Compliance Risk Assessment in order to adequately address the compliance risks SFL is exposed to.

Commitment to honest and ethical conduct and integrity are key values for SFL. These values are embedded in our way of working with customers, business partners, employees, shareholders and the communities in which we operate. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards bribery as stated in our Corporate Code of Business Ethics and Conduct and Financial Crime Policy, which applies to all entities controlled by SFL’s officers, directors, employees as well as workers and third-party consultants, wherever they are located. Our implemented enterprise-wide anti-corruption and money laundering policies are modelled on the UK Bribery Act and US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).

Assessing and monitoring business processes, training and controls are fundamental tools in implementing our anticorruption policy. As part of our compliance processes, appropriate risk-based communication and training are provided to employees as part of their onboarding and ongoing development programme.

See further details contained in our latest Environmental Social Governance Report, which may be found on our website at https://www.sflcorp.com/esg/. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report.

 

As of March 16, 2023, our customers includes, among others, Golden Ocean Group Limited (“Golden Ocean”), Maersk A/S (“Maersk”), Maersk Sealand Pte Ltd (“Maersk Sealand”), MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and its affiliate Conglomerate Shipping Ltd. (“MSC”), ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (“ConocoPhillips”), Phillips 66 Company (“Phillips 66”), Landbridge Group Co. Ltd and its subsidiaries (“Landbridge”), Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd. and its affiliate Evergreen Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Evergreen”), Volkswagen Konzernlogistik Gmbh Co. OHG Wolfsburg (“Volkswagen”), Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. (“K Line”), Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd (“Trafigura”), Hapag-Lloyd AG (“Hapag-Lloyd”), Koch Shipping Pte Ltd (“Koch”), EUKOR Car Carriers Inc. (“Eukor”) and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. (“ExxonMobil”).

Our customers that represent the largest proportion of our revenue are discussed below in Item 5 - “Factors Affecting Our Current and Future Results”.

We currently operate in several sectors of the maritime, shipping and offshore industries, including oil transportation, dry bulk shipments, chemical transportation, oil products transportation, container transportation, car transportation and drilling rigs.

The markets for international seaborne oil transportation services, dry bulk transportation services, container and car transportation services are highly fragmented and competitive. Seaborne oil transportation services are generally provided by two main types of operators: major oil companies or captive fleets (both private and state-owned) and independent shipowner fleets.

In addition, several owners and operators pool their vessels together on an ongoing basis, and such pools are available to customers to the same extent as independently owned and operated fleets. Many major oil companies and other commodity carriers also operate their own vessels and use such vessels not only to transport their own cargoes but also to transport cargoes for third parties, in direct competition with independent owners and operators.

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

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

Competition for charters in all the above sectors is intense and is based upon price, location, size, age, specifications, condition and acceptability of the vessel/rig and its technical and commercial managers. Competition is also affected by the availability of other sized vessels/rigs to compete in the trades in which we engage. Most of our existing vessels are chartered at fixed rates on a long-term basis and are thus not directly affected by competition in the short-term. However dry bulk carriers chartered to the Golden Ocean Charterer are subject to profit sharing agreements, which are affected by competition experienced by the charterers.

Government regulation and laws significantly affect the ownership and operation of our fleet. We are subject to international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered relating to safety and health and environmental protection including the storage, handling, emission, transportation and discharge of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and the remediation of contamination and liability for damage to natural resources. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of government and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (applicable national authorities such as the USCG, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administrations (countries of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and other authorizations for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or result in the temporary suspension of the operation of one or more of our vessels.

Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with United States and international regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations. However, because such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

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

The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by vessels (the “IMO”), has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, collectively referred to as MARPOL 73/78 and herein as “MARPOL,” the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 (“SOLAS Convention”), and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966 (the “LL Convention”). MARPOL establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged forms. MARPOL is applicable to dry bulk, tanker and LNG carriers, among other vessels, and is broken into six Annexes, each of which regulates a different source of pollution. Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried in bulk in liquid or in packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, lastly, relates to air emissions. Annex VI was separately adopted by the IMO in September of 1997; new emission standards titled IMO-2020 took effect on January 1, 2020.

In 2012, IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee, or the “MEPC” adopted a resolution amending the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, or the “IBC Code”. The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and the SOLAS Convention. These amendments, which entered into force in June 2014 and took effect on January 1, 2021, pertain to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk and identifying new products that fall under the IBC Code. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

In 2013, the MEPC adopted a resolution amending MARPOL Annex I Condition Assessment Scheme, or “CAS”. These amendments became effective on October 1, 2014, and require compliance with the 2011 International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, or “ESP Code”, which provides for enhanced inspection programs. We may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments.

In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits “deliberate emissions” of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks, and the shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions, as explained below. Emissions of “volatile organic compounds” from certain vessels, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) are also prohibited. We believe that all our vessels are currently compliant in all material respects with these regulations.

Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain “Emission Control Areas,” or (“ECAs”). As of January 1, 2015, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 0.1% m/m. Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs. Currently, the IMO has designated four ECAs, including specified portions of the Baltic Sea area, North Sea area, North American area and United States Caribbean area. Ocean-going vessels in these areas will be subject to stringent emission controls and may cause us to incur additional costs. Other areas in China are subject to local regulations that impose stricter emission controls. In December 2021, the member states of the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (“Barcelona Convention”) agreed to support the designation of a new ECA in the Mediterranean. On December 15, 2022, MEPC 79 adopted the designation of a new ECA in the Mediterranean, with an effective date of May 1, 2025. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO, or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. At the MEPC meeting held from March to April 2014, amendments to Annex VI were adopted which address the date on which Tier III Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) standards in ECAs will go into effect. Under the amendments, Tier III NOx standards apply to ships that operate in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs designed for the control of NOx produced by vessels with a marine diesel engine installed and constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Tier III requirements could apply to areas that will be designated for Tier III NOx in the future. At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, the MEPC approved the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for nitrogen oxide for ships built on or after January 1, 2021. The EPA promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in 2010. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.

As determined at the MEPC 70, the new Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI became effective as of March 1, 2018 and requires ships above 5,000 gross tonnage to collect and report annual data on fuel oil consumption to an IMO database, with the first year of data collection having commenced on January 1, 2019. The IMO intends to use such data as the first step in its roadmap (through 2023) for developing its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, as discussed further below.

As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. All ships are now required to develop and implement Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (“SEEMP”), and new ships must be designed in compliance with minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile as defined by the Energy Efficiency Design Index (“EEDI”). Under these measures, by 2025, all new ships built will be 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. MEPC 75 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI which brings forward the effective date of the EEDI’s “phase 3” requirements from January 1, 2025 to April 1, 2022 for several ship types, including gas carriers, general cargo ships, and LNG carriers.

Additionally, MEPC 75 introduced draft amendments to Annex VI which impose new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. These amendments introduce requirements to assess and measure the energy efficiency of all ships and set the required attainment values, with the goal of reducing the carbon intensity of international shipping. The requirements include (1) a technical requirement to reduce carbon intensity based on a new Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (“EEXI”), and (2) operational carbon intensity reduction requirements, based on a new operational carbon intensity indicator (“CII”). The attained EEXI is required to be calculated for ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, in accordance with different values set for ship types and categories. With respect to the CII, the draft amendments would require ships of 5,000 gross tonnage to document and verify their actual annual operational CII achieved against a determined required annual operational CII. Additionally, MEPC 75 proposed draft amendments requiring that, on or before January 1, 2023, all ships above 400 gross tonnage must have an approved SEEMP on board. For ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, the SEEMP would need to include certain mandatory content. MEPC 75 also approved draft amendments to MARPOL Annex I to prohibit the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) by ships in Arctic waters on and after July 1, 2024. The draft amendments introduced at MEPC 75 were adopted at the MEPC 76 session in June 2021 and entered into force on November 1, 2022 with the requirements for EEXI and CII certification coming into effect from January 1, 2023. MEPC 77 adopted a non-binding resolution which urges Member States and ship operators to voluntarily use distillate or other cleaner alternative fuels or methods of propulsion that are safe for ships and could contribute to the reduction of Black Carbon emissions from ships when operating in or near the Arctic. MEPC 79 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, Appendix IX to include the attained and required CII values, the CII rating and attained EEXI for existing ships in the required information to be submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database. The amendments will enter into force on May 1, 2024.

We may incur costs to comply with these revised standards. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

The SOLAS Convention was amended to address the safe manning of vessels and emergency training drills. The Convention of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “LLMC”) sets limitations of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim or a property claim against ship owners. We believe that our vessels are in substantial compliance with SOLAS and LLMC standards.

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

Regulation II-1/3-10 of the SOLAS Convention governs ship construction and stipulates that ships over 150 meters in length must have adequate strength, integrity and stability to minimize risk of loss or pollution. Goal-based standards amendments in SOLAS regulation II-1/3-10 entered into force in 2012, with July 1, 2016 set for application to new oil tankers and bulk carriers. The SOLAS Convention regulation II-1/3-10 on goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers, which entered into force on January 1, 2012, requires that all oil tankers and bulk carriers of 150 meters in length and above, for which the building contract is placed on or after July 1, 2016, satisfy applicable structural requirements conforming to the functional requirements of the International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (“GBS Standards”).

Amendments to the SOLAS Convention Chapter VII apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (“IMDG Code”). Effective January 1, 2018, the IMDG Code includes (1) updates to the provisions for radioactive material, reflecting the latest provisions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, (2) new marking, packing and classification requirements for dangerous goods, and (3) new mandatory training requirements. Amendments which took effect on January 1, 2020 also reflect the latest material from the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, including (1) new provisions regarding IMO type 9 tank, (2) new abbreviations for segregation groups, and (3) special provisions for carriage of lithium batteries and of vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas. Additional amendments, which came into force on June 1, 2022, include (1) addition of a definition of dosage rate, (2) additions to the list of high consequence dangerous goods, (3) new provisions for medical/clinical waste, (4) addition of various ISO standards for gas cylinders, (5) a new handling code, and (6) changes to stowage and segregation provisions.

The IMO has also adopted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (“STCW”). As of February 2017, all seafarers are required to meet the STCW standards and be in possession of a valid STCW certificate. Flag states that have ratified SOLAS and STCW generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS and STCW requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

Furthermore, recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and United States agencies indicates that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. By IMO resolution, administrations are encouraged to ensure that cyber-risk management systems are incorporated by ship-owners and managers by their first annual Document of Compliance audit after January 1, 2021. In February 2021, the U.S. Coast Guard published guidance on addressing cyber risks in a vessel’s safety management system. This might cause companies to create additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures. The impact of such regulations is hard to predict at this time.

In June 2022, SOLAS also set out new amendments that will take effect January 1, 2024, which include new requirements for: (1) the design for safe mooring operations, (2) the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (“GMDSS”), (3) watertight integrity, (4) watertight doors on cargo ships, (5) fault-isolation of fire detection systems, (6) life-saving appliances, and (7) safety of ships using LNG as fuel. These new requirements may impact the cost of our operations.

The IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatories to such conventions. For example, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”) in 2004. The BWM Convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of new or invasive aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits, and require all ships to carry a ballast water record book and an international ballast water management certificate.

On December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of the BWM Convention so that the dates are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention. This, in effect, makes all vessels delivered before the entry into force date “existing vessels” and allows for the installation of ballast water management systems on such vessels at the first International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey following entry into force of the convention. The MEPC adopted updated guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) at MEPC 70. At MEPC 72, the schedule regarding the BWM Convention’s implementation dates was also discussed and amendments were introduced to extend the date existing vessels are subject to certain ballast water standards. Those changes were adopted at MEPC 72. Ships over 400 gross tons generally must comply with a “D-1 standard,” requiring the exchange of ballast water only in open seas and away from coastal waters. The “D-2 standard” specifies the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged, and compliance dates vary depending on the IOPP renewal dates. Depending on the date of the IOPP renewal survey, existing vessels must comply with the D-2 standard on or after September 8, 2019. For most ships, compliance with the D-2 standard will involve installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Ballast water management systems, which include systems that make use of chemical, biocides, organisms or biological mechanisms, or which alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the ballast water, must be approved in accordance with IMO Guidelines (Regulation D-3). As of October 13, 2019, MEPC 72’s amendments to the BWM Convention took effect, making the Code for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, which governs assessment of ballast water management systems, mandatory rather than permissive, and formalized an implementation schedule for the D-2 standard. Under these amendments, all ships must meet the D-2 standard by September 8, 2024. Costs of compliance with these regulations may be substantial. Additionally, in November 2020, MEPC 75 adopted amendments to the BWM Convention which would require a commissioning test of the ballast water management system for the initial survey or when performing an additional survey for retrofits. This analysis will not apply to ships that already have an installed BWM system certified under the BWM Convention. These amendments have entered into force on June 1, 2022. In December 2022, MEPC 79 agreed that it should be permitted to use ballast tanks for temporary storage of treated sewage and grey water. MEPC 79 also established that ships are expected to return to D-2 compliance after experiencing challenging uptake water and bypassing a BWM system should only be used as a last resort. Guidance will be developed at MEPC 80 (in July 2023) to set out appropriate actions and uniform procedures to ensure compliance with the BWM Convention.

Once mid-ocean exchange ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory under the BWM Convention, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and may have a material effect on our operations. However, many countries already regulate the discharge of ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The U.S., for example, requires vessels entering its waters from another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternate measure, and to comply with certain reporting requirements.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by different Protocols in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000 (the “CLC”). Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner may be strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit, the Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so that the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless act or omission where the shipowner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC requires ships over 2,000 tons covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner’s liability for a single incident. We have protection and indemnity insurance for environmental incidents. P&I Clubs in the International Group issue the required Bunkers Convention “Blue Cards” to enable signatory states to issue certificates. All of our vessels are in possession of a CLC State issued certificate attesting that the required insurance coverage is in force.

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

Ships are required to maintain a certificate attesting that they maintain adequate insurance to cover an incident. In jurisdictions, such as the United States where the CLC or the Bunker Convention has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or on a strict-liability basis.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti‑fouling Systems on Ships, or the “Anti‑fouling Convention”. The Anti‑fouling Convention, which entered into force on September 17, 2008, prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages will also be required to undergo an initial survey before the vessel is put into service or before an International Anti‑fouling System Certificate (the “IAFS Certificate”) is issued for the first time; and subsequent surveys when the anti‑fouling systems are altered or replaced.

In November 2020, MEPC 75 approved draft amendments to the Anti-fouling Convention to prohibit anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne, which would apply to ships from January 1, 2023, or, for ships already bearing such an anti-fouling system, at the next scheduled renewal of the system after that date, but no later than 60 months following the last application to the ship of such a system. In addition, the IAFS Certificate has been updated to address compliance options for anti-fouling systems to address cybutryne. Ships which are affected by this ban on cybutryne must receive an updated IAFS Certificate no later than two years after the entry into force of these amendments. Ships which are not affected (i.e. with anti-fouling systems which do not contain cybutryne) must receive an updated IAFS Certificate at the next anti-fouling application to the vessel. These amendments were formally adopted at MEPC 76 in June 2021.

We have obtained Anti‑fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti‑fouling Convention.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all “owners and operators” whose vessels trade or operate within the U.S., its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S.’s territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the U.S. The U.S. has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, except in limited circumstances, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define “owner and operator” in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

(i)    injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;

(ii)    injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;

(iii)    loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;

OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs. Effective November 12, 2019, the USCG adjusted the limits of OPA liability for a tank vessel, other than a single-hull tank vessel, over 3,000 gross tons liability to the greater of $2,300 per gross ton or $19,943,400 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation). On December 23, 2022, the USCG issued a final rule to adjust the limitation of liability under the OPA. Effective March 23, 2022, the new adjusted limits of OPA liability for a tank vessel, other than a single-hull tank vessel, over 3,000 gross tons liability to the greater of $2,500 per gross ton or $21,521,300 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation). Effective March 23, 2022, the new adjusted limits of OPA liability for non-tank vessels, edible oil tank vessels, and any oil spill response vessels, to the greater of $1,300 per gross ton or $1,076,000 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation). Effective November 12, 2019, the USCG adjusted the limits of OPA liability for non-tank vessels, edible oil tank vessels, and any oil spill response vessels, to the greater of $1,200 per gross ton or $997,100 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation). These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship), or a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident as required by law where the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.

CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damages for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing the same, and health assessments or health effects studies. There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5.0 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel. These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations. The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.

OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We comply and intend to comply going forward with the USCG’s financial responsibility regulations by providing applicable certificates of financial responsibility.

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including higher liability caps under OPA, new regulations regarding offshore oil and gas drilling, and a pilot inspection program for offshore facilities. However, several of these initiatives and regulations have been or may be revised. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (“BSEE”) revised Production Safety Systems Rule (“PSSR”), effective December 27, 2018, modified and relaxed certain environmental and safety protections under the 2016 PSSR. Additionally, the BSEE amended the Well Control Rule, effective July 15, 2019, which rolled back certain reforms regarding the safety of drilling operations, and former U.S. President Trump had proposed leasing new sections of U.S. waters to oil and gas companies for offshore drilling. In January 2021, U.S. President Biden signed an executive order temporarily blocking new leases for oil and gas drilling in federal waters. However, Attorneys general from 13 states filed suit in March 2021 to lift the executive order and in June 2021, a federal judge in Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration stating that the power to pause offshore oil and gas leases "lies solely with Congress". In August 2022, a federal judge in Louisiana sided with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with the other 12 plaintiff states, by issuing a permanent injunction against the Biden Administration’s moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal public lands and offshore waters. With these rapid changes, compliance with any new requirements of OPA and future legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels could impact the cost of our operations and adversely affect our business.

OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills. Many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law. Moreover, some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, although in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

We currently maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1.0 billion per vessel per incident, except for certain excluded areas at high risk including Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (the “High Risk Areas”). If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Cybersecurity is also a top priority with the U.S. Coast Guard, and they announced a concentrated campaign to assist in identifying and addressing cybersecurity vulnerabilities during the first quarter of the year 2023. The cybersecurity of our vessels continues to improve through hands-on training, campaigns and external assistance/equipment provision.

The U.S. Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In 2015, the EPA expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”), thereby expanding federal authority under the CWA. Following litigation on the revised WOTUS rule, in December 2018, the EPA and Department of the Army proposed a revised, limited definition of WOTUS. In 2019 and 2020, the agencies repealed the prior WOTUS Rule and promulgated the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (“NWPR”) which significantly reduced the scope and oversight of EPA and the Department of the Army in traditionally non-navigable waterways. On August 30, 2021 a federal district court in Arizona vacated the NWPR and directed the agencies to replace the rule. On December 7, 2021, the EPA and the Department of the Army proposed a rule that would reinstate the pre-2015 definition. On December 30, 2022, the EPA and the Department of Army announced the final WOTUS rule that largely reinstated the pre-2015 definition.

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

In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. The directive applies to all types of vessels, irrespective of their flag, but certain exceptions apply to warships or where human safety or that of the ship is in danger. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 (amending EU Directive 2009/16/EC) governs the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and, subject to some exclusions, requires companies with ships over 5,000 gross tonnage to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions annually which may cause us to incur additional expenses.

The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives requiring, among other things, more frequent inspections of high-risk ships, as determined by type, age, and flag as well as the number of times the ship has been detained. The European Union also adopted and extended a ban on substandard ships and enacted a minimum ban period and a definitive ban for repeated offenses. The regulation also provided the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, by imposing more requirements on classification societies and providing for fines or penalty payments for organizations that failed to comply. Furthermore, the EU has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/33/EC (amending Directive 1999/32/EC) introduced requirements parallel to those in Annex VI relating to the sulfur content of marine fuels. In addition, the EU imposed a 0.1% maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel (the so called “SOx-Emission Control Area”). As of January 2020, EU member states must also ensure that vessels in all EU waters, except the SOx-Emission Control Area, use fuels with a 0.5% maximum sulfur content.

On September 15, 2020, the European Parliament voted to include greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector in the European Union's carbon market, the EU ETS. On July 14, 2021 the European Parliament formally proposed its plan, which would involve gradually including the maritime sector from 2023 and phasing the sector in over a three-year period. This will require shipowners to buy permits to cover these emissions. The Environment Council adopted a general approach on the proposal in June 2022. On December 18, 2022, the Environmental Council and European Parliament agreed to include maritime shipping emissions within the scope of the EU ETS on a gradual introduction of obligations for shipping companies to surrender allowances: 40% for verified emissions from 2024, 70% for 2025 and 100% for 2026. Most large vessels will be included in the scope of the EU ETS from the start. Big offshore vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will be included in the 'MRV' on the monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport regulation from 2025 and in the EU ETS from 2027. General cargo vessels and off-shore vessels between 400-5,000 gross tonnage will be included in the MRV regulation from 2025 and their inclusion in EU ETS will be reviewed in 2026.

The International Labour Organization (the "ILO") is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 ("MLC 2006"). A Maritime Labour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships that are 500 gross tonnage or over and are either engaged in international voyages or flying the flag of a Member and operating from a port, or between ports, in another country. We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with targets extended through 2020. International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The U.S. initially entered into the agreement, but on June 1, 2017, former U.S. President Trump announced that the United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and the withdrawal became effective on November 4, 2020. On January 20, 2021, U.S. President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which the U.S. officially rejoined on February 19, 2021.

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including (1) decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships; (2) reducing carbon dioxide emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 emission levels; and (3) reducing the total annual greenhouse emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely. The initial strategy notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition. These regulations could cause us to incur additional substantial expenses. At MEPC 77, the Member States agreed to initiate the revision of the Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships, recognizing the need to strengthen the ambition during the revision process. MEPC 79 revised the EEDI calculation guidelines to include a CO2 conversion factor for ethane, a reference to the updated ITCC guidelines, and a clarification that in case of a ship with multiple load line certificates, the maximum certified summer draft should be used when determining the deadweight. A final draft Revised IMO GHG Strategy would be considered by MEPC 80 (scheduled to meet in July 2023), with a view to adoption.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. Starting in January 2018, large ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information. As previously discussed, regulations relating to the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector in the European Union's carbon market, or EU ETS are also forthcoming.

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, former U.S. President Trump signed an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and in August 2019, the Administration announced plans to weaken regulations for methane emissions. On August 13, 2020, the EPA released rules rolling back standards to control methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new oil and gas facilities. However, U.S. President Biden recently directed the EPA to publish a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding certain of these rules. On November 2, 2021, the EPA issued a proposed rule under the CAA designed to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas sources. The proposed rule is expected to reduce 41 million tons of methane emissions between 2023 and 2035 and cuts methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by approximately 74 percent compared to emissions from this sector in 2005. EPA also issued a supplemental proposed rule in November 2022 to include additional methane reduction measures following public input and anticipates issuing a final rule in 2023. If these new regulations are finalized, they could affect our operations.

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the EU, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Even in the absence of climate control legislation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or certain weather events.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security such as the MTSA. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.

The USCG regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid ISSC that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Future security measures could have a significant financial impact on us. We intend to comply with the various security measures addressed by MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in the frequency of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of detention of a vessel or additional security measures, and the risk of uninsured losses could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP5 industry standard.

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

Rigs must comply with applicable MARPOL limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, chlorofluorocarbons, and the discharge of other air pollutants, and also with the Bunker Convention's strict liability for pollution damage caused by discharges of bunker fuel in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states.

Furthermore, any drilling units that we may operate in U.S. waters, including the U.S. territorial sea and the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States, would have to comply with OPA and CERCLA requirements, among others, that impose liability (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges of oil or other hazardous substances.

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

In addition to the MARPOL, OPA and CERCLA requirements described above, our international offshore drilling operations are subject to various laws and regulations in countries in which we operate, including laws and regulations relating to the importation of and operation of drilling units and equipment, currency conversions and repatriation, oil and gas exploration and development, environmental protection, taxation of offshore earnings and earnings of expatriate personnel, the use of local employees and suppliers by foreign contractors, and duties on the importation and exportation of drilling units and other equipment. New environmental or safety laws and regulations could be enacted, which could adversely affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Governments in some countries have become increasingly active in regulating and controlling the ownership of concessions and companies holding concessions, the exploration for oil and gas, and other aspects of the oil and gas industries in their countries. In some areas of the world, this governmental activity has adversely affected the amount of exploration and development work done by major oil and gas companies and may continue to do so. For example, on December 20, 2016, former U.S. President Obama invoked a law that banned offshore oil and gas drilling in large areas of the Arctic and the Atlantic Seaboard. In April 2017, former President Trump signed an executive order sought to loosen that ban but was blocked by a federal court ruling in Alaska in March 2019. The Trump administration appealed the decision and in April 2021, a federal appeals court affirmed the ruling and found that President Biden's reinstatement of Obama-era protections makes moot the Trump administration's attempts to allow oil development in the Atlantic and Arctic waters. In November 2021, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act, which initially included provisions that banned offshore drilling in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and cancelled drilling leases and blocked future oil and gas extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, the Senate stripped the ban on offshore drilling from the bill, although the ban on energy extraction activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still in place. Negotiations on the Build Back Better Act are currently stalled. On July 27, 2022, the Senate announced the Inflation Reduction Act, which was the final result of the Build Back Better Act negotiations. President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law on August 16, 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 establishes a program designed to reduce methane emissions from certain oil and natural gas facilities, which includes a charge on methane emissions above certain thresholds.

In conjunction with the 2016 U.S. ban, the government of Canada simultaneously banned new drilling in Canadian Arctic waters and in August 2019, issued an order prohibiting oil and gas activities under existing leases in the Canadian Arctic offshore. The Canadian government imposed a five-year moratorium on its 2016 ban of new Canadian Arctic drilling, and based on its research and findings, these restrictions may be lifted. Operations in less developed countries can be subject to legal systems that are not as mature or predictable as those in more developed countries, which can lead to greater uncertainty in legal matters and proceedings. Implementation of new environmental laws or regulations that may apply to ultra-deepwater drilling units may subject us to increased costs or limit the operational capabilities of our drilling units and could materially and adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and SOLAS. Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage and lending that a vessel be certified “in class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies, the IACS. The IACS has adopted harmonized Common Structural Rules, or "the Rules", which apply to oil tankers and bulk carriers contracted for construction on or after July 1, 2015. The Rules attempt to create a level of consistency between IACS Societies. All of our vessels are certified as being “in class” by all the applicable Classification Societies (e.g., American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd's Register of Shipping).

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys, drydockings and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Every vessel is also required to carry out a bottom survey every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel as dictated by statutory and class regulations. If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The managed vessels, depending on the flag administration requirements, are inspected during the stipulated periodicities. These inspections are arranged on a timely basis and the findings (if any) are addressed for corrective actions, close-out and acceptance purposes. The findings are also finally reviewed by the relevant flag administration, in order to record the actions taken by the Company and close-out the findings on their systems.

We procure hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes environmental damage and pollution insurance and war risk insurance and freight, demurrage and defense insurance for our fleet. We generally maintain insurance against loss of hire on our operated fleet, which covers business interruptions that result in the loss of use of a vessel.

Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or “P&I Associations,” and covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations, or “clubs”.

Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident, except for certain excluded High Risk Areas. The 13 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. The International Group’s website states that the Pool provides a mechanism for sharing all claims in excess of $10.0 million up to, currently, approximately $8.9 billion. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on our claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the shipping pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

The insurance of our vessels which are chartered on a bareboat basis or on a time charter basis to Frontline Shipping and the Golden Ocean Charterer is the responsibility of the bareboat charterers, Frontline Management (Bermuda) Ltd. (“Frontline Management”) or Golden Ocean Management, respectively, who arrange insurance in line with standard industry practice. We are responsible for the insurance of our other time chartered and voyage chartered vessels. In accordance with standard practice, we maintain marine hull and machinery and war risks insurance, which include the risk of actual or constructive total loss, and protection and indemnity insurance with mutual assurance associations. From time to time we carry insurance covering the loss of hire resulting from marine casualties in respect of some of our vessels. Currently, the amount of coverage for liability for pollution, spillage and leakage available to us on commercially reasonable terms through protection and indemnity associations and providers of excess coverage is up to $1.0 billion per vessel per occurrence, except for certain excluded High Risk Areas. P&I Associations are mutual marine indemnity associations formed by shipowners to provide protection from large financial loss to one member by contribution towards that loss by all members.

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

A large part of our vessels are chartered at fixed rates on a long-term basis and seasonal factors do not have a significant direct effect on our business. Our dry bulk carriers on charter to the Golden Ocean Charterer are subject to profit sharing agreements and to the extent that seasonal factors affect the profits of the charterers of these vessels we will also be affected. We also have one Suezmax tanker, two chemical tankers, seven dry bulk carriers and one container vessel trading in the spot or short term time charter market, and the effects of seasonality may affect the earnings of these vessels. Following scrubber installations on seven container vessels on charter to Maersk and one car carrier on charter to Eukor, the agreements were amended to include sharing of fuel cost savings with these charterers. Scrubber installations on seven Capesize bulk carriers to Golden Ocean will potentially lead to fuel cost savings affecting earnings and profit share. The fuel savings will depend on the price difference between IMO compliant fuel and IMO non-compliant fuel that is subsequently made compliant by the scrubbers.

We own a substantially modern fleet of vessels and rigs. The following table sets forth the fleet that we own or charter-in including those in our associated companies as of March 16, 2023. All of the VLCCs, Suezmax tankers, product tankers and chemical tankers are double-hull vessels.

In addition to the above fleet of vessels and rigs, we also have four newbuilding dual-fuel 7,000 CEU car carriers designed to use liquefied natural gas ("LNG") under construction and with deliveries expected to take place in 2023 and 2024.

Substantially, all of our owned vessels and rigs as of December 31, 2022 are pledged under mortgages, excluding two 1,700 TEU container vessels, two 2,500 TEU container vessels, one car carrier and two chemical tankers.

Other than our interests in the vessels and drilling units described above, we do not own any material physical properties. We lease office space in Oslo from Seatankers Management Norway AS, in Singapore from Frontline Shipping Singapore Pte Ltd, and in London from Frontline Corporate Services Ltd, all related parties.

 

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with Item 4. "Information on the Company" and our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included herein.

Following our spin-off from Frontline and the purchase of our original fleet in 2004, we have established ourselves as a leading international maritime asset-owning company with a large and diverse asset base across the maritime and offshore industries. A full fleet list is provided in Item 4D "Information on the Company" showing the assets that we currently own and charter to our customers.

 

 

Our selected income statement and cash flow statement data with respect to the fiscal years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020 and our selected balance sheet data with respect to the fiscal years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements included in Item 18 of this annual report, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which we refer to as US GAAP.

The selected income statement and cash flow statement data for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 and the selected balance sheet data for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements not included herein. The following table should be read in conjunction with Item 5. "Operating and Financial Review and Prospects" and our consolidated financial statements and the notes to those statements included herein.