UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

--12-31 

FORM 20-F

OR

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2024

OR

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report

For the transition period from             to

Commission file number 001-31236

TSAKOS ENERGY NAVIGATION LIMITED

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Not Applicable

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Bermuda

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

367 Syngrou Avenue

175 64 P. Faliro

Athens, Greece

011-30210-9407710

(Address of principal executive offices)

Paul Durham

367 Syngrou Avenue

175 64 P. Faliro

Athens, Greece

Telephone: 011-30210-9407710

E-mail: ten@tenn.gr

Facsimile: 011-30210-9407716

(Name, Address, Telephone Number, E-mail and Facsimile Number of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: 

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

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

As of December 31, 2024, there were 30,127,603 of the registrant’s Common Shares, 4,745,947 Series E Preferred Shares and 6,747,147 Series F Preferred Shares outstanding.

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer  ☐    Accelerated Filer ☒    Non-accelerated filer  ☐    Emerging growth company  ☐

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report Yes ☒   ☐ No

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b) ☐

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

All statements in this Annual Report on Form 20-F that are not statements of historical fact are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The disclosure and analysis set forth in this Annual Report on Form 20-F includes assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events in a number of places, particularly in relation to our operations, cash flows, financial position, plans, strategies, business prospects, changes and trends in our business and the markets in which we operate. These statements are intended as forward-looking statements. In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as “believe,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “project,” “forecast,” “plan,” “potential,” “may,” “should” and “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, such matters as:

We caution that the forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 20-F and are not intended to give any assurance as to future results. These forward-looking statements are not statements of historical fact and represent only our management’s belief as of the date hereof, and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially and inversely from expectations expressed in or indicated by the forward-looking statements. Assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events may, and often do, vary from actual results and these differences can be material. There are a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, which affect our operations, performance, business strategy and results and could cause actual reported results and performance to differ materially from the performance and expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, supply and demand for crude oil carriers, product tankers and LNG carriers, charter rates and vessel values, supply and demand for crude oil and petroleum products and liquefied natural gas, accidents, collisions and spills, environmental and other government regulation, the availability of debt financing, fluctuation of currency exchange and interest rates and the other risks and uncertainties that are outlined in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. As a result, the forward-looking events discussed in this Annual Report on Form 20-F might not occur and our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Accordingly, you should not unduly rely on any forward-looking statements.

We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all these factors. Further, we cannot assess the impact of each such factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to be materially different from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

PART I

Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited is a Bermuda company that is referred to in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, together with its subsidiaries, as “Tsakos Energy Navigation,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our.” This report should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto, which are included in Item 18 to this report.

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers

Not Applicable.

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not Applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

Capitalization

The following table sets forth our (i) cash and cash equivalents, (ii) restricted cash and (iii) consolidated capitalization as of December 31, 2024. This table should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not Applicable.

Risk Factors

Summary of Risk Factors

An investment in our common shares or preferred shares is subject to a number of risks, including risks related to our industry, business and corporate structure. The following summarizes some, but not all, of these risks. Please carefully consider all of the information discussed in “Item 3. Key Information— Risk Factors” in this annual report for a more thorough description of these and other risks.

Risks Related To Our Industry

Risks Related To Our Business

Risks Related to Our Management Arrangements

Risks Related To Our Common and Preferred Shares

Tax Risks

Risks Related To Our Industry

The tanker industry is cyclical, resulting in charter rates that can be volatile. Poor charter markets for crude oil and product tankers may adversely affect our future revenues and earnings.

The tanker industry is historically cyclical, resulting in volatility in charter rates, and, in turn, our revenue and earnings. The typical cycle is partially the result of fluctuations in the number of tankers available in the market, which determines the overall supply of tankers competing for charters. The number of tankers in the market changes as a result of new deliveries to the market, offset by vessels demolished or converted due to technical obsolescence, as well as changes in the number of vessels occupied on long-distance travel or delayed by geopolitical events. The cycle is also impacted by demand for charter hires resulting from material changes in the supply of and demand for oil due primarily to fluctuations in the price of oil and to geopolitical factors. As of April 4, 2025, half of the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies were employed under charters based upon prevailing market rates (including time charters with a profit share component), and the remaining vessels were employed on time charters which, if not extended, are scheduled to expire on various dates between April 2025 and April 2038, including twenty-one which are scheduled to expire within 2025.

After declining significantly from 2016 through most of 2018, adversely affecting our revenues, profitability and cash flows, tanker charter rates improved significantly in the latter part of 2019 and stayed strong through the first half of 2020 due mainly to a strong demand for floating oil storage brought about by low oil prices. However, stagnant demand for oil induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the release of inventory from storage caused a dramatic fall in tanker rates in the second half of 2020 which continued through 2021 and through the first half of 2022, before increasing significantly since such time through the date of this Annual Report. The current crisis in Ukraine that started during the first quarter of 2022, has created a global redrawing of trade routes leading to an increase in the length of oil tanker voyages and sanctions have resulted in elimination of some vessels that are engaged in sanctioned activity from the available fleet. While the conflict in Ukraine is disrupting energy production and trade patterns and its impact on energy prices and tanker charter rates, which initially have increased, is uncertain. The factors influencing the supply of and demand for tanker 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. The effective supply of tankers has been impacted in recent years by the impact of sanctions and trade pattern disruptions, including vessels currently continuing to reroute away from the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Suez Canal due to Houthi attacks on ships. These factors resulted in fleet inefficiencies and support for tanker charter rates, which may not continue.

If rates in the charter market were to decline and remain at low levels for any significant period in 2024, it will have an adverse effect on our revenues, profitability and cash flows. Declines in prevailing charter rates also affect the value of our vessels, which are correlated to the trends of charter rates, and could affect our ability to comply with our loan covenants.

Disruptions in global economic conditions, including due to the conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East, and protectionist trade measures such as tariffs and other governmental action in the United States and in other parts of the world could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and share price.

Global economic conditions impact worldwide demand for energy and commodities and, thus, tanker shipping. The current macroeconomic environment is characterized by significant inflation, causing the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks to increase interest rates, which may raise the cost of capital, increase operating costs and reduce economic growth, disrupting global trade and shipping. Political events such as the continued and escalating global trade war between the U.S. and China, expansion of U.S. tariffs and trade protectionism policies to other countries, including Canada, Mexico and the E.U., and other policies that the new U.S. administration has stated, such as demands related to the operation of the Panama Canal, as well as ongoing conflicts throughout the world, such as those in Ukraine and in the Middle East, including Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, may disrupt global supply chains and negatively impact globalization and global economic growth. Weakened global economic conditions could disrupt financial markets, and may lead to weaker energy demand in the European Union, the United States and other parts of the world which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Beginning in February of 2022, President Biden and several European leaders announced various economic sanctions against Russia in connection with the aforementioned conflicts in the Ukraine region and continue to remain in effect, which may adversely impact 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. On March 8, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, which still remains in effect, prohibiting the import of certain Russian energy products into the United States, including crude oil, petroleum, petroleum fuels, oils, liquefied natural gas and coal. Additionally, the executive order prohibits any investments in the Russian energy sector by US persons, among other restrictions both to common and preferred shareholders.

In addition, the exit of the UK from the European Union and the possible need of realignment of trading patterns as a consequence, as well as continued turmoil and hostilities in Ukraine and the Middle East or potential hostilities elsewhere in the world and additional public health emergencies or natural disasters, could contribute to volatility in the global financial markets. These circumstances, along with the re-pricing of credit risk and the reduced participation of certain financial institutions from financing of the shipping industry, will likely continue to affect the availability, cost and terms of vessel financing. If financing is not available to us when it is needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, our business may be adversely affected, with corresponding effects on our profitability, cash flows and ability to pay dividends.

Our operations expose us to the risk that increased trade protectionism from the United States, China or other nations adversely affect world oil and petroleum markets and in turn the demand for energy shipping. Restrictions on imports, including in the form of tariffs, could have a major impact on global trade and demand for shipping. Tensions over trade and other matters remain high between the U.S. and China. In recent years, the United States instituted large tariffs on a wide variety of goods, including from China, which led to retaliatory tariffs from leaders of other countries including China, and the new U.S. administration, led by President Trump, has announced the intention to use tariffs extensively as a policy tool. The United States has recently imposed blanket 10% tariffs on virtually all imports to the U.S. and significantly higher tariffs applicable to imports from many countries, including tariffs aggregating 145% on imports from China, which have resulted in other countries imposing additional tariffs on imports from the U.S., including additional tariffs of 125% on imports from the U.S., announced by China, and is likely to continue to result in more retaliatory tariffs.  On April 9, 2025, the U.S. announced a temporary pause on its tariffs applicable to many countries, while increasing the tariffs applicable to imports from China. The new U.S. administration has threatened to continue to broadly impose tariffs, which could lead to corresponding punitive actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. The U.S. has also recently threatened to increase port fees for Chinese-built or owned ships, including for a vessel operator whose fleet includes one or more Chinese-built vessels or that has newbuilding orders at a Chinese shipyard. The proposal of the U.S. trade representative (USTR), if adopted as proposed, would require Chinese shipping companies to pay up to $1 million per port call and those operating Chinese-built vessels to be charged up to $1.5 million per U.S. port call, depending on the percentage of vessels in their fleet built at Chinese shipyards or newbuilding orders with Chinese shipyards. It is unknown whether and to what extent these new port fees on Chinese shipping companies and vessels will be adopted, or the effect that they would have on us or our industry generally. These policy pronouncements have created significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the United States and China, Canada, Mexico, the E.U. and other exporting countries, including with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs, and has led to concerns regarding the potential for an extended trade war. Protectionist developments, or the perception they may occur, may have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions, and may significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between the United States and other countries, including China, which could adversely and materially affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The tanker industry is highly dependent upon the crude oil and petroleum products industries, with the level of availability and demand for oil and petroleum products impacting demand for tankers and, in turn, charter rates.

The employment of our subsidiaries’ vessels is driven by the availability of and demand for crude oil and petroleum products, the availability of modern tanker capacity and the scrapping, conversion, or loss of older vessels. Historically, the world oil and petroleum markets have been volatile and cyclical because of the many conditions and events that affect the supply, price, production and transport of oil, including:

Despite turbulence in the world economy at times in recent years, worldwide demand for oil and oil products has continued to rise; however, the COVID-19 pandemic caused demand for oil and oil products to stagnate for an extended period of time. In the event that an economic slowdown results in a persistent stagnation or decline in demand and the long-term trend falters, the production of and demand for crude oil and petroleum products will encounter pressure which could lead to a decrease in shipments of these products and consequently this would have an adverse impact on the employment of our vessels and the charter rates that they command, as was case from the second half of 2020 until the second quarter of 2022. Also, if oil prices decline to uneconomic levels for producers, whether as a result of global economic weakness resulting from the escalating trade wars resulting from U.S. tariff announcements or otherwise, it may lead to declining output. As a result of any reduction in demand or output, the charter rates that we earn from our vessels employed on charters related to market rates may decline, and possibly remain at low levels for a prolonged period, as was the case for most periods during the preceding ten years.

Our operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations.

The tankers owned by our subsidiary companies operate in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in tanker demand, which may result in variability in our results of operations on a quarter-by-quarter basis. Tanker markets are typically stronger in the winter months due to increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere, but weaker in the summer months as a result of lower oil consumption in the northern hemisphere and refinery maintenance. As a result, revenues generated by the tankers in our fleet have historically been weaker during the fiscal quarters ended June 30 and September 30. However, there may be periods in the northern hemisphere when the expected seasonal strength does not materialize to the extent required to support sustainable profitable rates due to tanker overcapacity.

An increase in the global supply of vessels, or specifically in a particular category of vessel, without an increase in demand for such vessels could cause global charter rates to decline, or rates for a particular category of vessel to decline, which could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Historically, the marine transportation industry has been cyclical. The profitability and asset values of companies in the industry have fluctuated based on certain factors, including changes in the supply and demand of vessels. The supply of vessels generally increases with deliveries of newly constructed vessels and decreases with the scrapping or conversion of older vessels and/or the removal of vessels from the competitive fleet either for storage purposes or for utilization in offshore projects. The newbuilding order book equaled approximately 14% of the existing world tanker fleet at the beginning of March 2025, by number of vessels, with a significant amount of these newbuilding vessels scheduled to be delivered in 2026. No assurance can be given that the order book will not increase further in proportion to the existing fleet. If vessel supply increases, and demand does not match that increase, the charter rates for our vessels could decline significantly. In addition, any decline of trade on specific long-haul trade routes will effectively increase available capacity with a detrimental impact on rates. A decline in charter rates could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

The global tanker industry is highly competitive.

We operate our fleet in a highly competitive market. Our competitors include owners of VLCC, suezmax, aframax, dual-fuel LNG powered aframax, panamax and handysize tankers, as well as owners in the DP2 shuttle tanker and LNG markets, which are other independent tanker companies, as well as state and independent oil companies, some of which have greater financial strength and capital resources than we do. Competition in the tanker industry is intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition, installation of required or technically up to date equipment and the acceptability of the available tankers and their operators to potential charterers.

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

Despite a decline in the frequency of pirate attacks on seagoing vessels in the western part of the Indian Ocean, such attacks remain prevalent off the west coast of Africa and between Malaysia and Indonesia. In addition, more recently, there has been an apparent attempted hijack of a tanker by stowaways off the UK coast, requiring military intervention by British special forces. If piracy attacks or vessel hijacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones, as the Gulf of Aden has been, or Joint War Committee (JWC) “war and strikes” listed areas, premiums payable for such insurance coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. In addition, while we believe the charterer remains liable for charter payments when a vessel is seized by pirates, the charterer may dispute this and withhold charter hire until the vessel is released. A charterer may also claim that a vessel seized by pirates was not “on-hire” for a certain number of days and it is therefore entitled to cancel the charter party, a claim that we would dispute. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Terrorist attacks, international hostilities, economic and trade sanctions, including those related to the conflict in Ukraine, can affect the tanker industry, which could adversely affect our business.

Major oil and gas producing countries in the Middle East have become involved militarily in conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan and Yemen. Armed conflicts with insurgents and others continue, as well, in Chad and Libya, and political unrest and instability have adversely affected the infrastructure and economic stability of Venezuela, each of which is a major oil exporting country. In addition, tension and instability in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, a vital passageway for international oil shipment, may adversely affect the future export of oil around the region.

Any such hostility or instability could seriously disrupt the production of oil or LNG and endanger their export by vessel or pipeline, which could put our vessels at serious risk and impact our operations and our revenues, expenses, profitability and cash flows in varying ways that we cannot now project with any certainty.

Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and sanctions subsequently announced by the United States, the EU and several European and other nations against Russia and any further sanctions, including any sanctions or restrictions affecting companies with Russian connections or the Russian energy sector and harmed by any retaliatory measures by Russia or other countries in response, may also adversely impact our business given Russia’s role as a major global exporter of crude oil.

Since 2023 and into early 2025 Houthi rebels based in Yemen have been targeting vessels with drone attacks whilst transiting the Red Sea. Many shipowners and charterers have diverted vessels to avoid the area, despite a strong Naval presence in the area. Whilst the stated aim of the Houthi rebels has been to target vessels trading to or from Israel or with links to the US or UK, other non-related vessels have been attacked and our policy has therefore been to avoid transits of the Red Sea.

The increasing number of terrorist attacks throughout the world, longer-lasting wars, international incidents or international hostilities, such as in the Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and the Korean peninsula, could damage the world economy and adversely affect the availability of and demand for crude oil and petroleum products and negatively affect our investment and our customers’ investment decisions over an extended period of time. In addition, sanctions against oil exporting countries such as Iran, Sudan, Syria, Russia and Venezuela may also impact the availability of crude oil which would increase the availability of tankers, thereby negatively impacting charter rates. We conduct our vessel operations internationally and despite undertaking various security measures, our vessels may become subject to terrorist acts and other acts of hostility like piracy, either at port or at sea. Such actions could adversely impact our overall business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, terrorist acts and regional hostilities around the world in recent years have led to increases in our insurance premium rates and the implementation of special “war risk” premiums for certain trading routes, although our charter party agreements generally provide that additional war risks insurance costs are for charterers’ account.

The conflict in Ukraine could disrupt our operations and negatively impact charter rates and costs.

The conflict in Ukraine, and the economic sanctions imposed by the EU, U.S. and other countries in response to Russian action, 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. Some of these sanctions and executive orders target the Russian oil sector, including a prohibition on the import of oil from Russia to the United States or the United Kingdom, and the European Union's ban on Russian crude oil and petroleum products which took effect in December 2022 and February 2023, respectively, as well as a price cap on Russian oil of $60 per barrel. Prior to the war, Russia exported approximately 5.5 mbpd of seaborne crude oil and refined petroleum products to the EU, USA, South Korea and Japan. After February 2023, Russia is exporting less than 0.4 mbpd to these countries. The price of crude oil (Brent) initially traded above $100 per barrel as a result of the war and escalating tensions in the region and fears of potential shortages in the supply of Russian crude oil but has since come down and is now trading above $60 per barrel. Russian crude oil is restricted for export, due to the extension of economic sanctions, and has also been impacted by boycotts and general sentiment, which could result in a reduction in the supply of crude oil and refined petroleum products cargoes available for transportation and, while initially tanker rates have increased, this could negatively impact tanker charter rates over the longer term. In addition, higher oil prices could reduce demand for oil and refined petroleum products, including in the event of any slowdown in the global economy due such high oil prices or the impact of economic sanctions or geopolitical tensions and uncertainty, and in turn reduce demand for tankers and tanker charter rates. The conflict may also impact various costs of operating our business, such as bunker expenses, for which we are responsible when our vessels operate in the spot market, which have increased with higher oil prices, war risk insurance premiums and crewing services, as Russia and the Ukraine are significant sources of crews, which may be disrupted or more expensive.

In addition, our vessels carry lawful cargoes originating in Russia, in compliance with existing sanctions, oil majors and other charterers may elect not to charter our vessels simply for doing business with companies that do lawful business in Russia. In addition, it may not be possible for us to obtain war risk insurance for any vessel loading Russian origin cargoes, in which case our vessels would not be allowed to call Russian ports and thereby impacting the vessels’ future trading pattern and earnings.

The situation in Ukraine, and the global response, continues to evolve and its impact on energy supply and demand, energy prices and tanker operations and charter rates remains subject to considerable uncertainty, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our charterers may direct one of our vessels to call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, the UN or the EU, which could negatively affect the trading price of our shares.

On charterers’ instructions, our subsidiaries’ vessels may be requested to call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government, the UN or the EU and countries identified by the U.S. government, the UN or the EU as state sponsors of terrorism. The U.S., UN- and EU- sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time.

The U.S. also maintains embargoes on Cuba, North Korea and Syria, and certain regions of Ukraine. Beginning in February 2022, the United States, the European Union and numerous other nations have also been imposing substantial additional sanctions on Russia regarding its invasion of Ukraine.

We can anticipate that some of our charterers may request our vessels to call on ports located in these countries. Although we believe that we are in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or expanded over time as is the case with the war in Ukraine. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. Additionally, some investors may decide to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us simply because we do business with companies that do lawful business in sanctioned countries. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations because of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. Current or future counterparties of ours may be or become affiliated with persons or entities that are now or may in the future be the subject of sanctions imposed by the U.S. Government, the European Union, and/or other international bodies. If we determine that such sanctions or embargoes require us to terminate existing or future contracts to which we, or our subsidiaries are a party or if we are found to be in violation of such applicable sanctions or embargoes, we could face monetary fines, we may suffer reputational harm and our results of operations may be adversely affected. Investor perception of the value of our shares may also be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-bribery legislation in other jurisdictions could result in fines, criminal penalties, contract terminations and an adverse effect on our business.

The vessels of our subsidiaries load and discharge cargoes in several countries throughout the world. In addition, we deal with many charterers and shipbrokers that are based in various countries. Certain of the countries in which these charterers and brokers operate may, in the past, have had a reputation for corruption. Brazilian authorities have charged certain shipbrokers with various offenses in connection with charters entered into between a major state oil entity and various international shipowners. We are subject to the risk that the alleged actions taken by these brokers are determined to constitute a violation of anti-corruption laws applicable to the Company, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the “FCPA”). In 2020, in parallel with U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations regarding whether the circumstances surrounding these charters, including the actions taken by these shipbrokers, constituted non-compliance with provisions of the FCPA applicable to the Company, we began investigating these matters. We are always committed to doing business in accordance with anti-corruption laws and cooperated with these agencies. In June 2024, the SEC informed the Company that it had terminated its investigation of the Company.

Any violation of the FCPA or other anti-bribery legislation in other jurisdictions could result in substantial fines, sanctions, civil and/or criminal penalties, or curtailment of operations in certain jurisdictions, and might adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, actual or alleged violations could damage our reputation and ability to do business. Furthermore, detecting, investigating, and resolving actual or alleged violations is expensive and can consume significant time and attention of our senior management.

Efforts to take advantage of opportunities in pursuit of our growth strategy may result in financial or commercial difficulties.

A key strategy of management is to continue to renew and grow the fleet by pursuing the acquisition of additional vessels or fleets or companies that are complementary to our existing operations. If we seek to expand through acquisitions, we face numerous challenges, including:

We cannot assure you that we will successfully integrate the operations, personnel, services or vessels that we might acquire in the future, and our failure to do so could adversely affect our profitability.

Increasing scrutiny and changing expectations from investors, lenders and other market participants with respect to ESG policies may impose additional costs on us or expose us to additional risks.

Companies across all industries, including the shipping industry, are facing increased 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 and the business, financial condition, and/or the stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected. As a result, we may be required to implement more stringent ESG procedures or standards so that we continue to have access to capital and our existing and future investors and lenders remain invested in us and make further investments in us.

Specifically, 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. Additionally, certain investors and lenders may exclude tanker shipping companies, such as us, from their investing portfolios altogether due to environmental, social and governance factors. If we are faced with limitations in the debt and/or equity markets as a result of these concerns, or if we are unable to access alternative means of financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be unable to access funds to implement our business strategy or service our indebtedness, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to regulation and liability under environmental, health and safety laws that could require significant expenditures and affect our cash flows and net income.

Our business and the operation of our subsidiaries’ vessels are subject to extensive international, national, and local environmental and health and safety laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. In addition, major oil companies chartering our vessels impose, from time to time, their own environmental and health and safety requirements.

To comply with these requirements and regulations, such as the MARPOL Annex VI sulfur emission requirements instituting a global 0.5% sulfur cap on marine fuels from January 1, 2020 ,the IMO ballast water management (“BWM”) convention, which requires vessels to install ballast water treatment systems (“BWTS”) with a ship specific timeframe latest by September 8, 2024 and the latest MARPOL Annex VI amendments that introduced the technical and operational measures of the Energy Efficiency Existing Shipping Index (“EEXI”) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (“CII”) to reduce carbon emissions produced by vessels, we may be required to incur additional costs to meet new maintenance and inspection requirements, develop contingency plans for potential mitigation measures, and obtain insurance coverage. Vessels that continually receive subpar CII ratings will be required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance.

In addition, as of January 1, 2024, the European Union expanded the existing EU Emissions Trading System (“EU ETS”) to include carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions from vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above. Shipping companies which perform voyages to/from/within the EU and EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) will need to acquire and surrender EU allowances (“EUAs”) through their Union Registry account by September of the following year to cover their annual emissions. One EUA is equivalent to one tonne of CO2 emission. The EU ETS covers 50% of emissions from voyages starting or ending outside of the EU and 100% of emissions from voyages that occur between two EU ports and when ships are within EU ports. The surrendering of allowances by shipping companies will be gradually increased with respect to verified emissions reported for the years 2024 and 2025. This means, in 2025, shipping companies will be liable to surrender allowances for 40% of verified emissions reported in 2024. In 2026, this increases to 70% of verified emissions reported in 2025. As of 2027 and each year thereafter, shipping companies will have to surrender allowances reflecting 100% of their verified emissions.

These and future environmental regulations, which may become stricter, may limit our ability to do business, increase our operating costs and/or force the early retirement of our vessels, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Environmental laws and regulations are often revised, and we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with them, or the impact they may have on the resale prices or useful lives of our vessels. We believe that regulation of the shipping industry will continue to become more stringent and compliance with such new regulations will be more expensive for us and our competitors.

International, national and local laws imposing liability for oil spills and carbon emissions are also becoming increasingly stringent. Some impose joint, several, and in some cases, unlimited liability on owners, operators and charterers for oil spills regardless of fault. We could be held liable as an owner, operator or charterer under these laws. In addition, under certain circumstances, we could also be held accountable under these laws for the acts or omissions of Tsakos Shipping & Trading S.A. (“Tsakos Shipping”), Tsakos Energy Management Limited (“Tsakos Energy Management”) or other companies that provide technical and commercial management services for our subsidiaries’ vessels and us, or others in the management or operation of our subsidiaries’ vessels. Although we currently maintain, and plan to continue to maintain, for each of our subsidiaries’ vessels’ pollution liability coverage in the amount of $1 billion per incident (the maximum amount available), liability for a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage we have available and result in our having to liquidate assets to pay claims. In addition, we may be required to contribute to funds established by regulatory authorities for the compensation of oil pollution damage or provide financial assurances for oil spill liability to regulatory authorities.

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 have an effect on 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 natural gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have significant financial and operational adverse impacts on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Maritime disasters and other operational risks may adversely impact our reputation, financial condition, and results of operations.

The operation of ocean-going vessels has an inherent risk of maritime disaster and/or accident, environmental mishaps, cargo and property losses or damage and business interruptions caused by, among others:

Any of these circumstances could adversely affect our operations, result in loss of revenues or increased costs and adversely affect our profitability and our ability to perform our charters.

Our subsidiaries’ vessels could be arrested at the request of third-parties.

Under general maritime law in many jurisdictions, crew members, tort claimants, vessel mortgagees, suppliers of goods and services and other claimants may lien a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through court process. In some jurisdictions, under the extended sister ship theory of liability, a claimant may arrest not only the vessel with respect to which the claimant’s maritime lien has arisen, but also any associated vessel under common ownership or control. While in some jurisdictions which have adopted this doctrine, liability for damages is limited in scope and would only extend to a company and its ship-owning subsidiaries, we cannot assure you that liability for damages caused by some other vessel determined to be under common ownership or control with our subsidiaries’ vessels would not be asserted against us.

Risks Related To Our Business

A decline in the future value of our vessels could affect our ability to comply with various covenants in our credit facilities unless waived or modified by our lenders.

Our credit facilities, which are secured by mortgages on our subsidiaries’ vessels, require us to maintain specified collateral coverage ratios and satisfy financial covenants, including requirements based on the market value of our vessels, such as maximum corporate leverage levels and loan-to-asset collateral coverage requirements. The appraised value of a vessel fluctuates depending on a variety of factors including the age of the vessel, its hull configuration, prevailing charter market conditions, supply and demand balance for vessels and new and pending legislation. If these values again decline, it may result in an inability to comply with the financial covenants under our credit facilities which relate to our consolidated leverage and loan-to-asset value collateral requirements. If we were unable to obtain waivers in the case of non-compliance with consolidated leverage or other financial covenants or post additional collateral or prepay principal in the case of loan-to-asset value requirements, our lenders could accelerate our indebtedness.

Charters at attractive rates may not be available when our current time charters expire.

During 2024, we derived approximately 73% of our revenues from time charters, as compared to 61% in 2023. Although tanker charter rates are currently at relatively high levels, as our current period charters on twenty-one of the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies expire in the remainder of 2025 and for additional vessels in future years, considering the volatile nature of the tanker market, it may not be possible to re-charter these vessels on a period basis at attractive rates. If attractive period charter opportunities are not available, we may seek to charter the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies on the spot market, which is subject to significant fluctuations. In the event a vessel owned by one of our subsidiary companies may not find employment at economically viable rates, management may opt to lay up the vessel until such time that rates become attractive again (an action which our subsidiary companies have never undertaken). During the period of any layup, the vessel would continue to incur expenditures such as debt service, insurance, reduced crew wages and maintenance costs.

We are dependent on the ability and willingness of our charterers to honor their commitments to us for substantially all our revenues and the failure of our counterparties to meet their obligations under our charter agreements could cause us to suffer losses or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We derive substantially all our revenues from the payment of charter hire by our charterers. As of April 4, 2025, 51 of our 61 subsidiaries’ vessels were employed under time charters including time charters with profit sharing provisions above specified minimum rate levels. We could lose a charterer or the benefits of a time charter if:

If we lose a time charter, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on terms as favorable to us or at all. We would not receive any revenues from such a vessel while it remained unchartered, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition, insure it and service any indebtedness secured by such vessel.

The ability and willingness of each of the counterparties to perform their obligations under their charters will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the oil and energy industries and of the oil and oil products shipping industry as well as the overall financial condition of the counterparties and prevailing charter rates. There can be no assurance that some of our subsidiaries’ customers would not fail to pay charter hire or attempt to renegotiate charter rates and, if the charterers fail to meet their obligations or attempt to renegotiate charter agreements, we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, as well as our ability to pay dividends in the future.

If our charterers fail to meet their obligations to us or attempt to renegotiate our charter agreements, as part of a court-led restructuring or otherwise, we could sustain significant reductions in revenue and earnings which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, as well as our ability to pay dividends, if any, in the future, and comply with the covenants in our credit facilities.

If our exposure to the spot market increases, our revenues could suffer and our expenses could increase.

The spot market for crude oil and petroleum product tankers is highly competitive. As of April 4, 2025, ten of the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies were employed under spot charters, as we have decided to maintain a considerable number of vessels in the spot market to take advantage of current high spot rates. Due to increased participation in the spot market, we may experience a lower overall utilization of our fleet through waiting time or ballast voyages, which could lead to a decline in operating revenue in rate environments where spot rates earned do not offset such lower utilization. Moreover, to the extent our vessels are employed in the spot market, both our revenue from vessels and our operating costs, specifically our voyage expenses, will be significantly impacted by adverse movements in the cost of bunkers (fuel), including the price of low sulfur fuel certain of our vessels have been required to use since the beginning of 2020. See “—Fuel prices may adversely affect our profits.” Unlike time charters in which the charterer bears all the bunker costs, in spot market voyages we bear the bunker charges as part of our voyage costs. As a result, while historical movements in bunker prices are factored into the prospective freight rates for spot market voyages periodically announced by World Scale Association (London) Limited and similar organizations, increases in bunker prices in any given period could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow and results of operations for the period in which the increase occurs. In addition, to the extent we employ our vessels pursuant to contracts of affreightment, the rates that we earn from the charterers under those contracts may be subject to reduction based on market conditions, which could lead to a decline in our operating revenue.

Because the market value of our vessels may fluctuate significantly, we may incur impairment charges or losses when we sell vessels which may adversely affect our earnings.

The fair market value of tankers may increase or decrease depending on any of the following:

Currently tanker market values are at relatively high levels, but until the second half of 2022 were at relatively low levels for most of the period since the financial crisis in 2008, falling whenever there was excess fleet capacity and declining freight rates. Although our subsidiaries currently own a relatively modern fleet, with an average age of 10.4 years as of April 4, 2025, as vessels grow older, they generally decline in value.

We have a policy of considering the disposal of tankers periodically. If our subsidiaries’ tankers are sold at a time when tanker prices have fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying value on our financial statements, with the result that we will incur a loss.

In addition, accounting standards require that we periodically review long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable. An impairment charge for an asset held for use should be recognized when the estimate of undiscounted cash flows, excluding interest charges, expected to be generated by the use of the asset is less than it’s carrying amount. Measurement of the impairment charge is based on the fair value of the asset as provided by third-parties. In cases where sale and purchase activity in the market does not exist or is limited, the Company uses future discounted net operating cash flows or a combination of future discounted net operating cash flows and third-party valuations to estimate the fair value of an impaired vessel, respectively. Such reviews may from time-to-time result in asset write-downs, which could adversely affect our results of operations, such as we did in 2023, with respect one of our subsidiaries’ LNG carriers.

If Tsakos Shipping and Trading S.A. (“Tsakos Shipping” or “TST”) is unable to attract and retain skilled crew members, our reputation and ability to operate safely and efficiently may be harmed.

Our continued success depends in significant part on the continued services of the officers and seamen whom TST provides to crew the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies. The market for qualified, experienced officers and seamen is extremely competitive and has grown more so in recent periods due to the growth in world economies and other employment opportunities. Although TST has manning management arrangements with a number of accredited manning agencies in Philippines, Ukraine, Romania, Georgia, Latvia, Brazil, Greece and Uruguay and sponsors various academies in the relevant regions, we cannot assure you that TST will be successful in its efforts to recruit and retain properly skilled personnel at commercially reasonable salaries. Any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to operate cost-effectively and our ability to increase the size of the fleet.

Labor interruptions could disrupt our operations.

Substantially all of the seafarers and land-based employees of TST are covered by industry-wide collective bargaining agreements that set basic standards. We cannot assure you that these agreements will prevent labor interruptions. In addition, like many other vessels internationally, some of our subsidiaries’ vessels operate under so-called “flags of convenience” and may be vulnerable to unionization efforts by the International Transport Federation and other similar seafarer organizations which could be disruptive to our operations. Any labor interruption or unionization effort which is disruptive to our operations could harm our financial performance.

Contracts for new building vessels present certain economic and other risks.

As of April 4, 2025, our subsidiaries have contracts for the construction of twelve DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers for delivery in 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028, two suezmax tankers for delivery in 2025, two MR tankers for delivery in 2026 and five LR1 tankers for delivery in 2027 and 2028. Our subsidiaries may also order additional new building vessels. During the construction of a vessel, we are required to make progress payments and need to finance the purchase price upon delivery of the vessel, with remaining purchase price obligations for new buildings of $2.0 billion, as of April 4, 2025, funding which will require us to obtain substantial additional secured debt and/or other financing. We have arranged senior secured debt financing for the remaining installment payments for the three DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers of these new buildings and we are in the process of seeking to arrange debt financing for the remaining eighteen new buildings. Management is in discussion with various high-end charterers to employ the two MR tankers and the five LR1 tankers on long-term contracts upon delivery, for which charters have not yet been arranged. While we typically have refund guarantees from banks to cover defaults by shipyards and our construction contracts would be saleable in the event of our payment default, we can still incur economic losses if we or the shipyards are unable to fulfil our respective obligations. Shipyards may periodically experience financial difficulties.

Delays in the delivery of these vessels, or any new building our subsidiaries may agree to acquire, could 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. The delivery of new building vessels could be delayed because of, among other things: work stoppages or other labor disturbances; bankruptcy or other financial crisis of the shipyard building the vessel; hostilities or political or economic disturbances in the countries where the vessels are being built; weather interference or catastrophic events, such as a major earthquake, tsunami or fire; our requests for changes to the original vessel specifications; requests from our customers, with whom our commercial managers arrange charters for such vessels, to delay construction and delivery of such vessels due to weak economic conditions and shipping demand or a dispute with the shipyard building the vessel.

Credit conditions internationally might impact our ability to raise debt financing.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been disrupted and volatile for periods in recent years. At times, the credit markets as well as the debt and equity capital markets were distressed, and it was difficult for many shipping companies to obtain adequate financing. The cost of available financing also increased significantly, but for leading shipping companies has since declined. The global financial markets and economic conditions could again experience volatility and disruption in the future.

We have traditionally financed our vessel acquisitions or constructions with our own cash (equity), including from share issuances, and bank debt from various reputable national and international commercial banks. In relation to new building contracts, the equity portion usually covers part of the pre-delivery obligations while the debt portion covers the outstanding amount due to the shipyard on delivery. However, we may arrange pre-delivery bank financing to cover much of the installments due before delivery, and, therefore, we would be required to provide the remainder of our equity investment at delivery. In addition, several of our existing loans will mature over the next few years, including five in 2025. If the related vessels are not sold, or we do not wish to use existing cash for paying the final balloon payments, then re-financing of the loans for an extended period beyond the maturity date will be necessary. Current and future terms and conditions of available debt financing, especially for older vessels without time charter could be different from terms obtained in the past and could result in a higher cost of capital, if available at all. Any adverse development in the credit markets could materially alter our current and future financial and corporate planning and growth and have a negative impact on our balance sheet.

The future performance of our subsidiaries’ LNG carriers depends on continued growth in LNG production and demand for LNG and LNG shipping.

The future performance of our subsidiaries’ LNG carriers will depend on continued growth in LNG production and the demand for LNG and LNG shipping. A complete LNG project includes production, liquefaction, storage, re-gasification, and distribution facilities, in addition to the marine transportation of LNG. Increased infrastructure investment has led to an expansion of LNG production capacity in recent years, but material delays in the construction of new liquefaction facilities could constrain the amount of LNG available for shipping, reducing ship utilization. The rate of growth in global LNG demand has fluctuated due to several factors, including global economic conditions and economic uncertainty, fluctuations in the price of natural gas and other sources of energy, growth in natural gas production from unconventional sources in regions such as North America and the highly complex and capital-intensive nature of new or expanded LNG projects, including liquefaction projects. Growth in LNG production and demand for LNG and LNG shipping could be negatively affected by several factors, including:

Reduced demand for LNG or LNG shipping, or any reduction or limitation in LNG production capacity, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to secure future multi-year time charters for the LNG carriers, or for any new LNG carriers our subsidiaries may acquire, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, including cash available for dividends to our shareholders.

Demand for LNG shipping could be significantly affected by volatile natural gas prices and the overall demand for natural gas.

Natural gas prices are volatile and are affected by numerous factors beyond our control, including but not limited to the following:

Any decline in oil prices, which can be very volatile, can depress natural gas prices and lead to a narrowing of the gap in pricing in different geographic regions, which can adversely affect the length of voyages in the spot LNG shipping market and the spot rates and medium-term charter rates for charters which commence in the near future. Any renewed decline in oil prices could adversely affect both the competitiveness of gas as a fuel for power generation and the market price of gas, to the extent that gas prices are benchmarked to the price of crude oil. Some production companies have announced delays or cancellations of certain previously announced LNG projects, which, unless offset by new projects coming on stream, could adversely affect demand for LNG charters over the next few years, while the amount of tonnage available for charter is expected to increase. A decline in the price of oil could make LNG a less attractive alternative for some uses and generally lead to reduced production of LNG. Reduced demand for LNG and LNG shipping could have an adverse effect on our future growth and would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

An oversupply of LNG carriers may lead to a reduction in the charter hire rates we are able to obtain when seeking charters in the future.

Driven in part by an increase in LNG production capacity and the expectation of further future capacity, the construction and delivery of new LNG carriers has been increasing. Any future expansion of the global LNG carrier fleet that cannot be absorbed by existing or future LNG projects may have a negative impact on charter rates, vessel utilization and vessel values. Such impact could be amplified if the expansion of LNG production capacity does not keep pace with fleet growth.

Hire rates for LNG carriers may fluctuate substantially and if rates are low when we are seeking a new charter, our revenues and cash flows may decline.

LNG carrier charter rates have generally been at relatively low levels for a number of years, having been negatively impacted by declines in the price of LNG, delays in the completion of liquefaction and regasification facilities around the world and a high order book. In addition, in recent years, as a result of more LNG being traded on a short-term basis and greater liquidity in the LNG shipping market, there has been a decrease in the duration of term charters for on-the-water vessels with such charters now generally being anywhere between six months and three years in duration. If LNG charter market conditions decline, we may have difficulty in securing new charters at attractive rates and durations for our LNG carriers when their current charters expire.

Our growth in shuttle tankers depends partly on continued growth in demand for offshore oil transportation, processing and storage services.

Our growth strategy includes expansion in the shuttle tanker sector, where we have twelve shuttle tankers under construction. Growth in this sector depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for these offshore services, which could be negatively affected by a number of factors, such as:

Oil prices were volatile during 2024. Brent traded within a range between $70 to $90 per barrel. Lower oil prices typically result in oil companies announcing reductions in oil production and exploration activities, including in offshore fields. Continued volatility in oil prices may exist depending on the policies of oil production countries and cartels, as well as international economic conditions and global geopolitics.

Fuel prices may adversely affect our profits.

While we do not bear the cost of fuel (bunkers) under time and bareboat charters, fuel is the largest expense in our shipping operations when vessels are under spot charters. Increases in the price of fuel may, as a result, adversely affect our profitability. The marine fuel with low sulfur content required to comply with the 0.5% sulfur cap on marine fuels became effective on January 1, 2020, for vessels without scrubbers. Initially, low sulfur fuel was substantially more expensive compared to the existing high sulfur fuel oil, and after narrowing for a period of time, this price differential has again increased recently. In general, the price and supply of marine fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including, among other factors, geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (or OPEC) and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns.

The shipping industry has inherent operational risks that may not be adequately covered by our insurance.

We believe that we maintain as much insurance on the vessels in the fleet, through insurance companies, including Argosy, a related party company, and P&I clubs, as is appropriate and consistent with industry practice. While we endeavor to be adequately insured against all known risks related to the operation of our subsidiaries’ vessels, there remains the possibility that a liability may not be adequately covered and we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage for the fleet in the future. Certain insurers may also not pay particular claims. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate, we may not be able to obtain a replacement vessel in a timely manner in the event of a loss. Our insurance policies contain deductibles for which we will be responsible and limitations and exclusions which may increase our costs or lower our revenue. In addition, some of our insurance coverage is maintained through mutual protection and indemnity associations, and as a member of such associations we may be required to make additional payments over and above budgeted premiums if member claims make an excessive impact on association reserves. The Company’s P&I renewals as of February 20, 2025 saw an increase in costs of 4.736%. The International Group of P&I offers a total $3.1 billion coverage, which includes $1 billion coverage for oil pollution liability. P&I, Hull and Machinery and War Risk insurance premiums are accounted for as part of operating expenses in our consolidated financial statements; accordingly, any changes in insurance premiums directly impact our operating results.

Failure to protect our information systems against security breaches could adversely affect our business and financial results. Additionally, if these systems fail or become unavailable for any significant period, our business could be harmed.

The efficient operation of our business is dependent on computer hardware and software systems. Information systems are vulnerable to security breaches by computer hackers, cyber terrorists, activist groups, espionage, organized crime, acts of warfare or cyber misuse. 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 cybersecurity breaches, the access, capture or alteration of information by criminals, the exposure or exploitation of potential security vulnerabilities, the installation of malware or ransomware, acts of vandalism, computer viruses, misplaced data, data loss or denial of our services. In addition, 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 result in decreased performance and increased operating costs, causing our business, results of operations and our company reputation to suffer. Any significant interruption or failure of our information systems or any significant breach of security could adversely affect our business and financial results, as well as our cash flows available for distribution to our shareholders.

Our degree of leverage and certain restrictions in our financing agreements impose constraints on us.

We incur substantial debt to finance the acquisition of our vessels. At December 31, 2024, our debt to capital ratio was 49.9% (debt / debt plus equity), with $1.6 billion in debt outstanding and $0.2 billion in other financial liabilities related to vessel financings. We are required to apply a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on this debt. In 2024, a substantial portion of our cash flow derived from operations was dedicated to debt service, voluntary debt prepayments and balloon payments to be refinanced. This limits the funds available for working capital, capital expenditures, dividends and other purposes. We may incur significant additional amounts of indebtedness in connection with financing our eighteen newbuilding tankers under construction or otherwise.

Our degree of leverage could have important consequences for us, including the following:

In addition, our financing arrangements, which we secured by mortgages on our vessels, impose operating and financial restrictions on us that restrict our ability to:

We have a holding company structure which depends on dividends from our subsidiaries and interest income to pay our overhead expenses and otherwise fund expenditures. As a result, restrictions contained in our financing arrangements and those of our subsidiaries on the payment of dividends may restrict our ability to fund our various activities.

We are exposed to volatility in interest rates, including the Secured Overnight Funding Rate (“SOFR”), and selectively enter into derivative contracts, which can result in higher than market interest rates and charges against our income.

Over the past 16 years we have selectively entered derivative contracts both for investment purposes and to hedge our overall interest expense and, more recently, our bunker expenses and our exposure to European Union Allowances within the context of EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Our board of directors monitors the status of our derivatives to assess whether such derivatives are within reasonable limits and reasonable in light of our particular investment strategy at the time we entered into the derivative contracts.

Loans advanced under our secured credit facilities are, generally, advanced at a floating rate, previously based on the London interbank offered rate (“LIBOR”) and now based on SOFR. Interest rates in the last two years after a long period of stability at historically low levels, and have been volatile in past years, which can affect the amount of interest payable on our debt, and which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our earnings and cash flow. Interest rates were at historically low levels for an extended period of time and benchmark interest rates, including SOFR, may continue to increase from current high levels. Our financial condition could be materially adversely affected at any time that we have not entered into interest rate hedging arrangements to hedge our interest rate exposure and the interest rates applicable to our credit facilities and any other financing arrangements we may enter into in the future, including those we enter into to finance a portion of the amounts payable with respect to our newbuildings, increase. Moreover, even if we have entered into interest rate swaps or other derivative instruments for purposes of managing our interest rate or bunker cost exposure, our hedging strategies may not be effective, and we may incur substantial loss.

We have a risk management policy and the Audit Committee oversees all our derivative transactions. It is our policy to monitor our exposure to business risk, and to manage the impact of changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rate movements and bunker prices on earnings and cash flows through derivatives. Derivative contracts are executed when management believes that the action is not likely to significantly increase overall risk. Entering swaps and derivatives transactions is inherently risky and presents various possibilities for incurring significant expenses. The derivatives strategies that we employ in the future may not be successful or effective, and we could, as a result, incur substantial additional interest costs. See “Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for a description of our current interest rate swap arrangements.

Inflation could adversely affect our business and financial results.

Inflation has increased significantly on a worldwide basis since mid-2021, with many countries facing their highest inflation rates in decades and could adversely affect our business and financial results. Inflation has had a moderate impact on operating expenses, dry-docking expenses, with main engine overhauls and higher costs for routine repairs and maintenance increasing costs of maintenance, and corporate overhead in 2024. Interest rates have increased rapidly and substantially as central banks in developed countries raise interest rates in an effort to subdue inflation. The eventual implications of tighter monetary policy, and higher long-term interest rates, has had and may continue to drive a higher cost of capital for our business. See “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects-Impact of Inflation and Interest Rates.”

Changing laws and evolving reporting requirements could have an adverse effect on our business.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to reporting requirements may create additional compliance requirements for us. The European Union Code of Conduct Group has assessed the tax policies of a range of countries including Bermuda, where we are incorporated. Bermuda was included in a list of jurisdictions which are required to address the European Union Code of Conduct Group's concerns in respect of ‘economic substance’. Bermuda, along with the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man, has committed to comply with the European Union Code of Conduct Group's requirements on economic substance and has passed legislation in the form of the Economic Substance Act 2018 (the “ESA”). The ESA 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. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, where a number of the Company’s subsidiaries are incorporated, has also adopted economic substance requirements. The Company believes in its in compliance with these requirements, including with respect to the filing of any requisite declarations.

Certain of our subsidiaries may from time to time be organized in other jurisdictions identified by the COCG based on global standards set by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with the objective of preventing low-tax jurisdictions from attracting profits from certain activities. If we fail to comply with our obligations under the ESA or any similar law applicable to us in any other jurisdiction, we could be subject to financial penalties and spontaneous disclosure of information to foreign tax officials in related jurisdictions. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because some of our subsidiaries’ vessels’ expenses are incurred in foreign currencies, we are exposed to exchange rate risks.

The charterers of the vessels owned by our subsidiary companies pay in U.S. dollars. While most of the expenses incurred by our managers or by us on our subsidiaries’ behalf are paid in U.S. dollars, certain of these expenses are in other currencies, most notably the Euro. In 2024, Euro expenses accounted for approximately 29% of our total operating expenses, including dry dockings. Declines in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, or the other currencies in which we incur expenses, would increase the U.S. dollar cost of paying these expenses and thus would adversely affect our results of operations.

We depend on our key personnel.

Our future success depends particularly on the continued service of Nikolas Tsakos, our chief executive officer and the sole shareholder of Tsakos Energy Management. The loss of Mr. Tsakos’ services or the services of any of our key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business. We do not maintain key man life insurance on any of our executive officers.

The Tsakos Holdings Foundation and the Tsakos family can exert considerable influence over us, which may limit your ability to influence our actions.

As of April 4, 2025, companies controlled by the Tsakos Holdings Foundation or affiliated with the Tsakos Group own approximately 27.1% of our outstanding common shares. The Tsakos Holdings Foundation is a Liechtenstein foundation whose beneficiaries include persons and entities affiliated with the Tsakos family, charitable institutions and other unaffiliated persons and entities. The council which controls the Tsakos Holdings Foundation consists of five members, two of whom are members of the Tsakos family. As long as the Tsakos Holdings Foundation and the Tsakos family beneficially own a significant percentage of our common shares, each will have the power to influence the election of the members of our board of directors and the vote on substantially all other matters, including significant corporate actions.

Risks Related to our Management Arrangements

We depend on Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Shipping to manage our business.

We do not have the employee infrastructure to manage our operations and have no physical assets. In common with industry practice, our subsidiaries own the vessels in the fleet and any contracts to construct new buildings. We have engaged Tsakos Energy Management to perform all our executive and management functions. Tsakos Energy Management employees directly provide us with financial, accounting, and other back-office services, including acting as our liaison with the New York Stock Exchange and the Bermuda Monetary Authority. Tsakos Energy Management, in turn, oversees and subcontracts part of commercial management (including treasury, chartering and vessel purchase and sale functions) and day-to-day fleet technical management, such as vessel operations, repairs, supplies and crewing, to TST. As a result, we depend upon the continued services provided by Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Energy Management depends on the continued services provided by Tsakos Shipping.

We derive significant benefits from our relationship with Tsakos Energy Management and its affiliated companies, including purchasing discounts to which we otherwise would not have access. We would be materially adversely affected if any of Tsakos Energy Management or Tsakos Shipping becomes unable or unwilling to continue providing services for our benefit at the level of quality, they have provided such services in the past and at comparable costs as they have charged in the past. If we were required to employ a ship management company other than Tsakos Energy Management or Tsakos Shipping, we cannot offer any assurances that the terms of such management agreements would be on terms as favorable to the Company in the long term.

Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Shipping are privately held companies and there is little or no publicly available information about them.

The ability of Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Shipping to continue providing services for our and our subsidiaries’ benefit will depend in part on their own financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair their financial strength and because each of these companies is privately held, it is unlikely that information about their financial strength would become public. Any such problems affecting these organizations could have a material adverse effect on us.

Tsakos Energy Management has the right to terminate its management agreement with us and Tsakos Shipping has the right to terminate their respective contracts with Tsakos Energy Management.

Tsakos Energy Management may terminate its management agreement with us at any time upon one year’s notice. In addition, if even one director were to be elected to our board without having been recommended by our existing board, Tsakos Energy Management would have the right to terminate the management agreement on 10 days’ notice. If Tsakos Energy Management terminates the agreement for this reason, we would be obligated to pay Tsakos Energy Management the present discounted value of all payments that would have otherwise become due under the management agreement until June 30 in the tenth year following the date of the termination plus the average of the incentive awards previously paid to Tsakos Energy Management multiplied by 10. A termination as of December 31, 2024, would have resulted in a payment of approximately $166.7 million. Tsakos Energy Management’s contracts with TST may be terminated by either party upon six months’ notice or would terminate automatically upon termination of our management agreement with Tsakos Energy Management.

Our ability to pursue legal remedies against Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Shipping is very limited.

In the event Tsakos Energy Management breaches its management agreement with us, we or our subsidiaries could bring a lawsuit against it. However, because neither we nor they are ourselves party to a contract with Tsakos Shipping, it may be difficult to sue Tsakos Shipping for breach of their obligations under their contracts with Tsakos Energy Management, and Tsakos Energy Management may have no incentive to sue Tsakos Shipping. Tsakos Energy Management is a company with no substantial assets and no income other than the income it derives under the management agreement with us. Therefore, it is unlikely that we or our subsidiaries would be able to obtain any meaningful recovery if we or they were to sue Tsakos Energy Management or Tsakos Shipping on contractual grounds.

Tsakos Shipping provides chartering services to other tankers and could experience conflicts of interests in performing obligations owed to us and the operators of other tankers.

In addition to the vessels that it manages for our fleet, TST technically manages a fleet of privately owned vessels and is available on occasion to provide similar management services to third-party clients. These vessels are operated by the same group of TST employees that manage our vessels, and we are advised that its employees manage these vessels on an “ownership neutral” basis; that is, without regard to who owns them. It is not impossible that Tsakos Shipping, which provides chartering services for all TEN’s vessels, might allocate charter or spot opportunities to other managed vessels when our subsidiaries’ vessels are unemployed.

Clients of Tsakos Shipping have acquired and may acquire additional vessels that may compete with our fleet.

Tsakos Shipping and we have an arrangement whereby it affords us a right of first refusal on any opportunity to purchase a tanker which is 10 years of age or younger or contract to construct a tanker that is referred to or developed by Tsakos Shipping. Were we to decline any opportunity offered to us, or if we do not have the resources or desire to accept it, other clients of Tsakos Shipping might decide to accept the opportunity. In this context, Tsakos Shipping clients have in the past acquired modern tankers and have ordered the construction of vessels. They may acquire or order tankers in the future, which, if we decline to buy from them, could be entered into charters in competition with our vessels. These charters and future charters of tankers by Tsakos Shipping could result in conflicts of interest between their own interests and their obligations to us.

Our chief executive officer has affiliations with Tsakos Energy Management and Tsakos Shipping which could create conflicts of interest.

Nikolas Tsakos is the chief executive officer and a director of our company and the director and sole shareholder of Tsakos Energy Management. Nikolas Tsakos is also the son of the founder of Tsakos Shipping. These responsibilities and relationships could create conflicts of interest that could result in losing revenue or business opportunities or increase our expenses.

Our commercial arrangements with Tsakos Energy Management and Argosy may not always remain on a competitive basis.

We pay Tsakos Energy Management a management fee for its services pursuant to our management agreement. We also place our hull and machinery insurance, increased value insurance and loss of hire insurance through Argosy Insurance Company, Guernsey, a captive insurance company affiliated with Tsakos interests. We believe that the management fees that we pay Tsakos Energy Management compare favorably with management compensation and related costs reported by other publicly traded shipping companies and that our arrangements with Argosy are structured at market rates. Our board reviews publicly available data periodically in order to confirm this. However, we cannot assure you that the fees charged to us are or will continue to be as favorable to us as those we could negotiate with third-parties and our board could determine to continue transacting business with Tsakos Energy Management and Argosy even if less expensive alternatives were available from third-parties.

We depend upon Hyundai Ocean Services and Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement to manage our subsidiaries’ LNG carriers.

Tsakos Energy Management has subcontracted all technical management of our LNG operations to Hyundai Ocean Services Co., Ltd (“HOS”) and Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement Ltd (“BSM”) for a fee. Neither Tsakos Energy Management nor TST has the dedicated personnel for running LNG operations nor can we guarantee that they will employ an adequate number of employees to conduct LNG operations in the future. As such, we are currently dependent on the reliability and effectiveness of third-party managers for whom we cannot guarantee that their employees, both onshore and at-sea are sufficient in number or capability for their assigned role. We also cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to receive such services from HOS and BSM on a long-term basis on acceptable terms or at all.

Risks Related To Our Common and Preferred Shares

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

Sales of a substantial number of our common shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, may depress the market price for our common shares. These sales could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity securities in the future. We may issue additional common shares in the future, and our shareholders may elect to sell large numbers of shares held by them from time to time.

The market price of our common shares and preferred shares may be unpredictable and volatile.

The market price of our common shares, Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares may 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, mergers and strategic alliances in the tanker industry, market conditions in the tanker industry, changes in government regulation, shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecast by securities analysts, announcements concerning us or our competitors, our sales of our common shares or of additional preferred shares, changes in prevailing interest rates and the general state of the securities market. The tanker industry has been highly unpredictable and volatile. The market for common stock and preferred stock in this industry may be equally volatile. Therefore, we cannot assure you that you will be able to sell any of our common shares and preferred shares you may have purchased, or will purchase in the future, at a price greater than or equal to the original purchase price.

We may not be able to pay cash dividends on our common shares or preferred shares as intended if market conditions change.

During 2024, we paid dividends on our common shares totaling $1.50 per common share, or $44.8 million. Subject to the limitations discussed below, we currently intend to continue to pay cash dividends on our common shares and preferred shares. However, there can be no assurance that we will pay dividends or as to the amount of any dividend. The payment and the amount will be subject to the discretion of our board of directors and will depend, among other things, on restrictions contained in the Companies Act of 1981 of Bermuda, as amended, on our available cash balances, anticipated cash needs, our results of operations, our financial condition, and any loan agreement restrictions binding us or our subsidiaries, including a prohibition of dividend distribution should there be an event of default in existence relating to any loan, as well as other relevant factors. In addition, dividends on our common shares are subject to the priority of our dividend obligations relating to our Series E and Series F Preferred Shares. We may have insufficient cash to pay dividends on or redeem our preferred shares or pay dividends on our common shares. Depending on our operating performance for a particular year, this could result in no dividend at all despite the existence of net income, or a dividend that represents a lower percentage of our net income.

Because we are a holding company with no material assets other than the stock of our subsidiaries, our ability to pay dividends will depend on the earnings and cash flow of our subsidiaries and their ability to pay us dividends. In addition, the financing arrangements for indebtedness we incur in connection with our newbuilding program may further restrict our ability to pay dividends. In the event of any insolvency, bankruptcy or similar proceedings of a subsidiary, creditors of, and holders of preferred shares issued by, such subsidiary would generally be entitled to priority over us with respect to assets of the affected subsidiary. Investors in our common shares and preferred shares may be adversely affected if we are unable to or do not pay dividends as intended.

Market interest rates may adversely affect the value of our Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares.

One of the factors that influences the price of our Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares is the dividend yield on these preferred shares (as a percentage of the price thereof) relative to market interest rates. An increase in market interest rates, which are currently at high levels relative to historical rates, may lead to higher prices for our shares when valued using their dividend yields. Higher interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for dividends. Accordingly, higher interest rates could cause the market prices of our preferred shares to decrease.

Our Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares represent perpetual equity interests and holders of such shares will have no right to receive any greater payment than the liquidation preference regardless of the circumstances.

The preferred shares represent perpetual equity interests in us and, unlike our indebtedness, will not give rise to a claim for payment of a principal amount at a particular date. As a result, holders of the preferred shares may be required to bear the financial risks of an investment in the preferred shares for an indefinite period of time.

The payment due to a holder of our Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares upon a liquidation is fixed at the redemption preference of $25.00 per share plus accumulated and unpaid dividends to the date of liquidation. If, in the case of our liquidation, there are remaining assets to be distributed after payment of this amount, you will have no right to receive or to participate in these amounts. Furthermore, if the market price for your preferred stock is greater than the liquidation preference, you will have no right to receive the market price from us upon our liquidation.

Our Preferred Shares are subordinated to our debt obligations and pari passu with each other, and your interests could be diluted by the issuance of additional preferred shares, including additional Series E and Series F Preferred Shares, and by other transactions.

Our preferred shares are subordinated to all of our existing and future indebtedness. As of December 31, 2024, we had outstanding indebtedness, including our lease obligations and other financial liabilities, of approximately $1.8 billion. Our existing indebtedness restricts, and our future indebtedness may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends to preferred stockholders. Our charter currently authorizes the issuance of up to 25 million preferred shares in one or more classes or series. Of these preferred shares, 13,506,906 preferred shares remain available for issuance as of April 4, 2025. The issuance of additional preferred shares on a parity with or senior to our outstanding preferred shares would dilute the interests of the holders of our exiting preferred shares and any issuance of preferred shares senior to or on a parity with our existing preferred shares or of additional indebtedness could affect our ability to pay dividends on, redeem or pay the liquidation preference on our preferred shares. No provisions relating to our preferred shares protect the holders of our Series E and Series F Preferred Shares in the event of a highly leveraged or other transaction, including a merger or the sale, lease or conveyance of all or substantially all our assets or business, which might adversely affect the holders of our Series E and Series F Preferred Shares.

Holders of our Preferred Shares have extremely limited voting rights.

The voting rights of holders of our preferred shares are extremely limited. Our common shares are the only class or series of our shares carrying full voting rights. The voting rights of holders of our Series E Preferred Shares and Series F Preferred Shares are limited to the ability, subject to certain exceptions, to elect, voting together as a class with all other classes or series of parity securities upon which like voting rights have been conferred and are exercisable, one director if dividends for six quarterly dividend periods (whether or not consecutive) payable thereon are in arrears and certain other limited protective voting rights described in “Item 10. Additional Information—Description of Share Capital—Preferred Shares.”

Provisions in our Bye-laws and our management agreement with Tsakos Energy Management would make it difficult for a third-party to acquire us, even if such a transaction is beneficial to our shareholders.

Our Bye-laws provide for a staggered board of directors, blank check preferred stock, super majority voting requirements and other anti-takeover provisions, including restrictions on business combinations with interested persons and limitations on the voting rights of shareholders who acquire more than 15% of our common shares. In addition, Tsakos Energy Management would have the right to terminate our management agreement and seek liquidated damages if a board member were elected without having been approved by the current board. These provisions could deter a third-party from tendering for the purchase of some or all our shares. These provisions may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes of control of the ownership and management of our company.

Because we are a foreign corporation, you may not have the same rights as a shareholder in a U.S. corporation.

We are a Bermuda company. Our Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws and the Companies Act govern our affairs. While many provisions of the Companies Act resemble provisions of the corporation laws of several states in the United States, Bermuda law may not as clearly establish your rights and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors as do statutes and judicial precedent in some U.S. jurisdictions. In addition, apart from two non-executive directors, our directors and officers are not resident in the United States and all or substantially all of our assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, 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 U.S. jurisdiction.

In addition, you should not assume that courts in the country in which we are incorporated or where our assets are located would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us based upon the civil liability provisions of applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws or would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us based on those laws.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under NYSE rules, and as such we are entitled to exemption from certain NYSE corporate governance standards, and you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the securities laws of the United States and the rules of the NYSE. Under the securities laws of the United States, “foreign private issuers” are subject to different disclosure requirements than U.S. domiciled registrants, as well as different financial reporting requirements. Under the NYSE rules, a “foreign private issuer” is subject to less stringent corporate governance requirements. Subject to certain exceptions, the rules of the NYSE permit a “foreign private issuer” to follow its home country practice in lieu of the listing requirements of the NYSE, including (i) the requirement that a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors, (ii) the requirement that the nominating/corporate governance committees be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities, (iii) the requirement that the compensation committee be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities, and (iv) the requirement of an annual performance evaluation of the nominating/corporate governance and compensation committees.

Nonetheless, a majority of our directors are independent, all of the members of our compensation, nominating and corporate governance committee are independent directors, and all of our board committees have written charters addressing their respective purposes and responsibilities. In accordance with Bermuda law, we may elect to issue authorized shares with Board approval, and not obtain shareholder approval in cases that a domestic U.S. public company would be required to do so.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read “Item 10. Additional Information—Tax Considerations” for a more complete discussion of the material Bermuda and U.S. Federal income tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of our common shares and preferred shares.

If we were to be subject to tax in jurisdictions in which we operate, our financial results would be adversely affected.

Tax laws, treaties and regulations are highly complex and subject to interpretation. Consequently, we and our subsidiaries are subject to changing laws, treaties and regulations in and between the countries in which we operate. Our tax expense is based on our interpretation of the tax laws in effect at the time the expense was incurred. A change in tax laws, treaties or regulations, or in the interpretation thereof, could result in a materially higher tax expense or a higher effective tax rate on our earnings. Such changes may include measures enacted in response to the ongoing initiatives in relation to fiscal legislation at an international level such as the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which contemplates a global minimum tax rate of 15% calculated on a jurisdictional basis, subject to exemptions including for qualifying international shipping income, as discussed further below.

In addition, if any tax authority successfully challenges positions we may take in tax filings, our operational structure, intercompany pricing policies, the taxable presence of our subsidiaries in certain countries or any other situation, or if the terms of certain income tax treaties are interpreted in a manner that is adverse to our structure, or if we lose a material tax dispute in any country, our effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings could increase substantially and our earnings and cash flows from operations could be materially adversely affected.

In October 2021, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (the “OECD”) Inclusive Framework reached an agreement on a “Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy” and, on December 20, 2021, the OECD’s Inclusive Framework published “Global Anti-Base Erosion,” or “GloBE” model rules, which are a key component of the Two-Pillar Solution. The GloBE model rules would apply to Multinational Enterprises (“MNEs”) with revenues of at least €750 million and provide for a coordinated system of taxation that imposes a “top-up” tax to ensure that an MNE pays a minimum rate of 15% tax on its net income in each country where it operates. Countries around the world have enacted, and are continuing to enact, legislation to implement the GloBE model rules. As the Two-Pillar Solution is subject to implementation by each member country, the timing and ultimate impact of any such changes on our tax obligations is uncertain. Such legislative initiatives may materially and adversely affect our plans to expand internationally and may negatively impact our tax liability, financial condition, and results of operations, and could increase our administrative expenses. These changes, as they take effect in various countries in which we do business, may also increase our taxes in these countries.

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. At the present time, there is no Bermuda income or profits tax, withholding tax, capital gains tax, capital transfer tax, estate duty or inheritance tax payable by us or our shareholders in respect of our shares, other than shareholders ordinarily resident in Bermuda. However, Bermuda enacted the Corporate Income Tax Act 2023 on 27 December 2023 (the “CIT Act”). Entities subject to tax under the CIT Act are the Bermuda constituent entities of MNEs. The definition of an MNE under the CIT Act follows the definition in the GloBE model roles i.e. a group with entities in more than one jurisdiction with consolidated revenues of at least EUR750mm for two out of the four previous fiscal years. If Bermuda constituent entities of a multi-national group are subject to tax under the CIT Act, such tax is charged at a rate of 15 per cent of the net taxable income of such constituent entities as determined in accordance with and subject to the adjustments set out in the CIT Act. While we expect that the Company would be treated as a Bermuda Constituent Entity for the purposes of the CIT Act and therefore subject to taxation in Bermuda for its first fiscal year starting on or after 1 January 2025, we do not expect to incur material tax liabilities in Bermuda due to the Company’s status as a holding company, and because the CIT Act is designed as a covered tax for the purposes of the GloBE model rules, meaning the CIT Act does not presently apply an income-inclusion rule or under taxed profits rule in the same way as the GloBE model rules do. However, future developments and guidance under the GloBE model rules may impact Bermuda’s implementation of its new corporate tax regime, and any future changes to the Bermuda corporate income tax regime may negatively impact our tax liability, financial condition, and results of operations, and could increase our administrative expenses.

We believe that we should not be liable to pay tax under the laws of various countries, other than the United States, in which our subsidiaries’ vessels conduct activities or in which our subsidiaries’ customers are located. However, our belief is based on our understanding of the tax laws of those countries, and our tax position is subject to review and possible challenge by taxing authorities and to possible changes in law or interpretation. We cannot determine in advance the extent to which certain jurisdictions may require us to pay corporate income tax or to make payments in lieu of such tax. In addition, payments due to us from our subsidiaries’ customers may be subject to tax claims. As a result of the continuing economic recovery in Greece, our operations in Greece may be subjected to new regulations that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs, which may include requirements that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. In addition, China has enacted a new tax for non-resident international transportation enterprises engaged in the provision of services of passengers or cargo, among other items, in and out of China using their own, chartered or leased vessels, including any stevedore, warehousing and other services connected with the transportation. The new regulation broadens the range of international transportation companies which may find themselves liable for Chinese enterprise income tax on profits generated from international transportation services passing through Chinese ports.

If we or our subsidiaries are not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for any taxable year, we or our subsidiaries could be subject for those years up to a 4% United States federal income tax on our gross U.S.-source shipping revenue, without allowance for deductions, under Section 887 of the Internal Revenue Code. The imposition of such tax could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings and cash flows available for distribution to our shareholders.

See “Item 10. Additional Information—Tax Considerations—United States federal income tax considerations” for additional information about the requirements of this exemption.

If we were treated as a passive foreign investment company, a U.S. investor in our shares would be subject to disadvantageous rules under the U.S. tax laws.

If we were treated as a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) in any year, our U.S. shareholders would be subject to unfavorable U.S. federal income tax treatment. We do not believe that we were a PFIC in 2024 or that we will be a PFIC with respect to the current or any future year. However, PFIC classification is a factual determination made annually and we could become a PFIC if the portion of our income derived from bareboat charters or other passive sources were to increase substantially or if the portion of our assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income were to increase substantially. Moreover, the IRS may disagree with our position that time and voyage charters do not give rise to passive income for purposes of the PFIC rules. Accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will not be treated as a PFIC for 2024 or for any future year. Please see “Item 10. Additional Information— Tax Considerations— United States federal income tax considerations—Passive Foreign Investment Company Considerations” herein for a description of the PFIC rules.

Distributions on shares of non-U.S. companies that are treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes and are received by individuals generally will be eligible for taxation at capital gain rates if the shares with respect to which the dividends are paid are readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States. This treatment will not be available to dividends we pay, however, if we qualify as a PFIC for the taxable year of the dividend or the preceding taxable year, or to the extent that (i) the shareholder does not satisfy a holding period requirement that generally requires that the shareholder hold the shares on which the dividend is paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the date on which the shares become ex-dividend with respect to such dividend, (ii) the shareholder is under an obligation to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property or (iii) such dividend is taken into account as investment income under Section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. We do not believe that we qualified as a PFIC for our last taxable year and, as described above, we do not expect to qualify as a PFIC for our current or future taxable years.

Item 4. Information on the Company

Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited is a leading provider of international seaborne crude oil and petroleum product transportation services. In 2007, it also started to transport liquefied natural gas. It was incorporated in 1993 as an exempted company under the laws of Bermuda under the name Maritime Investment Fund Limited and in 1996 was renamed MIF Limited. Our common shares were listed in 1993 on the Oslo Stock Exchange (OSE) and the Bermuda Stock Exchange, although we de-listed from the OSE in March 2005 due to limited trading. The Company’s shares are no longer actively traded on the Bermuda exchange. In July 2001, the Company’s name was changed to Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited to enhance our brand recognition in the tanker industry, particularly among charterers. In March 2002, we completed an initial public offering of our common shares in the United States and our common shares began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “TNP” until June 30, 2024 and under “TEN” since July 1, 2024. Since incorporation, the Company has owned and operated 112 vessels and has sold 57 vessels (of which eight had been chartered back and five of these eventually repurchased at the end of their charters; three of which have since been sold again).

Our principal offices are located at 367 Syngrou Avenue, 175 64 P. Faliro, Athens, Greece. Our telephone number at this address is +30 210 9407710. Our website address is http://www.tenn.gr.

For additional information on the Company, see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”

Business Overview

As of April 4, 2025, we operated a fleet of 55 modern crude oil and petroleum product tankers (including three vessels chartered-in) that provide world-wide marine transportation services for national, major and other independent oil companies and refiners under long, medium and short-term charters. Our fleet also includes two LNG carriers (including one chartered-in vessel) and four suezmax shuttle tankers with advanced dynamic positioning technology (DP2), bringing our total operating fleet to 61 vessels representing approximately 7.5 million dwt.

We believe that we have established a reputation as a safe, high-quality, cost-efficient operator of modern and well-maintained tankers. We also believe that these attributes, together with our strategy of proactively working towards meeting our customers’ chartering needs, has contributed to our ability to attract world-class energy producers as customers and to our success in obtaining charter renewals generating strong fleet utilization. Our fleet is managed by Tsakos Energy Management, a company owned by our chief executive officer. Tsakos Energy Management provides us with strategic advisory, financial, accounting, and administrative services, while subcontracting the commercial and technical management of our business to Tsakos Shipping.

In its capacity as commercial manager, Tsakos Shipping provides various services for our vessels, including charterer relations, obtaining insurance and vessel sale and purchase, supervising newbuilding construction and vessel financing. Tsakos Energy Management subcontracts the technical and operational management of our fleet to Tsakos Shipping and Trading S.A. (“Tsakos Shipping” or “TST”). TST now manages the technical and operational activities of all of our operating vessels apart from the LNG carriers Maria Energy and Tenergy, the VLCCs Ulysses, Hercules I, Dias I, the aframax tankers Maria Princess, Ise Princess, DF Montmartre, DF Mystras, Alpes, Aspen, and the suezmax tankers Decathlon and Popi Sazaklis which are technically managed by non-affiliated ship managers. TST is based in Athens, Greece. TST manages our day-to-day vessel operations, including provision of supplies, maintenance and repair, and crewing. Our Chief Executive Officer is an officer, director and sole shareholder of Tsakos Energy Management, and the son of the founder of TST.

As of April 4, 2025, our operational fleet consisted of the following 61 vessels:

Sixteen of the operating vessels are of ice-class specification. This fleet diversity, which includes several sister ships, provides us with the capability to be one of the more versatile operators in the market. The current operating fleet totals 7.5 million dwt, all of which are double-hulled. As of April 4, 2025, the average age of the tankers in our current operating fleet was 10.4 years, compared with the industry average of 13.7 years.

We believe the following factors distinguish us from other public tanker companies:

As of April 4, 2025, our fleet consisted of the following 61 vessels:

Our vessels under construction, as of April 4, 2025, consisted of the following:

We have arranged charters starting from the delivery of our DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers and our suezmax tankers under construction, for period of three to fifteen years, excluding charterer options for extension. The new buildings have a double hull design compliant with all classification requirements and prevailing environmental laws and regulations. Tsakos Shipping works closely with the shipyards in the design of the new buildings and provides supervisory personnel present during the construction.

Fleet Deployment

Depending on management’s view of the state of the current spot market and future prospects for the market, we aim to optimize the financial performance of our fleet by deploying at least half of our fleet on either time charters or period employment with variable rates, as we take proactive steps to meet any potential negative impact of the expanding world fleet on freight rates. As at April 4, 2025, the percentage of the fleet that is in employment at fixed rates (including time charters with a profit share component) was 82%, which is higher compared to prior periods. If the prospects for the spot market appear to management to generate sustainable positive returns, management may decide to deploy immediately to the spot market vessels coming off time-charter. We believe that our fleet deployment strategy and flexibility provide us with the ability to benefit from increases in tanker rates while at the same time maintaining a measure of stability through cycles in the industry. The following table details the respective employment basis of our fleet during 2024, 2023 and 2022 as a percentage of operating days.

Tankers operating on time charters may be chartered for several months or years whereas tankers operating in the spot market typically are chartered for a single voyage that may last up to several weeks. Vessels on period employment at variable rates related to the market are operating under contract of affreightment for a specific charterer. Tankers operating in the spot market may generate increased profit margins during improvements in tanker rates, while tankers operating on time charters generally provide more predictable cash flows. Accordingly, we actively monitor macroeconomic trends and governmental rules and regulations that may affect tanker rates in order to optimize the deployment of our fleet. As of April, 4, 2025, our fleet has eight tankers operating on spot voyages and two tankers operating under pool arrangements.

We have also secured charters from the delivery of fourteen of our new buildings, our twelve DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers for periods from seven to fifteen years and our two suezmax tankers for periods from three to five years, excluding charterer options for extension. We have not yet arranged employment for our two MR tankers and five LR1 tankers under construction which are scheduled for delivery to us in the first quarter of 2026, in the second, third and fourth quarter of 2027 and the third quarter of 2028, respectively.

Operations and Ship Management

Our operations

Management policies regarding our fleet that are formulated by our Board of Directors are executed by Tsakos Energy Management under a management contract. Tsakos Energy Management’s duties, which are performed exclusively for our benefit, include overseeing the purchase, sale and chartering of vessels, supervising day-to-day technical management of our vessels and providing strategic, financial, accounting and other services, including investor relations. Our tanker fleet’s technical management, including crewing, maintenance and repair, and voyage operations, have been subcontracted by Tsakos Energy Management to TST. Tsakos Energy Management also engages Tsakos Shipping to arrange chartering of our vessels, provide sales and purchase brokerage services, procure vessel insurance, and arrange bank financing. The technical management of thirteen vessels (four with Hyundai Ocean Services, two with International Tanker Management, one with Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement, one with LSC and five with Wallem) was sub-contracted to third-party ship managers during 2024.

The following chart illustrates the management of our fleet as of December 31, 2024:

Technical management of the LNG carriers Maria Energy and Tenergy, the VLCCs Hercules I, Ulysses, Dias I, the suezmax tankers Decathlon and Popi Sazaklis, the aframax tankers Maria Princess, Ise Princess, Alpes, Aspen, DF Montmartre, DF Mystras, was sub-contracted to unaffiliated third-party ship managers.

Management Contract

Executive and Commercial Management

Pursuant to our management agreement with Tsakos Energy Management, our subsidiaries’ operations are executed and supervised by Tsakos Energy Management, based on the strategy devised by our Board of Directors and subject to the approval of our Board of Directors as described below. In accordance with the management agreement, we pay Tsakos Energy Management monthly management fees for its management of our subsidiaries’ vessels.

The monthly fee may be adjusted annually in accordance with the terms of the agreement with Tsakos Energy Management, if both parties agree. On January 1, 2024, monthly fees remained the same, apart from the third-party managed vessels, which incurred minor increases. Monthly fees for third-party managed vessels increased to $28,756 from $28,384 for the suezmax tanker Decathlon, the VLCCs Ulysses, Hercules I from $29,742 to $30,149, for LNG carriers Maria Energy and Neo Energy (up to the sale May 31, 2024) increased to $45,858 from $45,105 and Tenergy to $37,500 from $36,667, for the aframax tankers Sapporo Princess (up to November 17, 2024) and Maria Princess from $29,742 to $30,149, and from $28,884 to $29,256 for the aframax tanker Ise Princess, respectively. Monthly fees for VLCC Dias I and suezmax tanker Eurochampion 2004 (up to the sale January 11, 2024) amounted to $28,708 and $29,742, respectively. For the newly acquired vessels, aframax tankers Alpes, Aspen, and the suezmax Popi Sazaklis, monthly fees amounted to $29,280 and $28,708 for the dual fuel LNG aframax tankers DF Montmartre and DF Mystras, respectively.

The management fee starts to accrue for a vessel at the point a new building contract is executed. To help ensure that these fees are competitive with industry standards, our management has periodically made presentations to our Board of Directors in which the fees paid to Tsakos Energy Management are compared against the publicly available financial information of other listed tanker companies. We paid Tsakos Energy Management aggregate management fees of $19.9 million in 2024, $19.5 million in 2023 and $20.2 million in 2022. From these amounts, Tsakos Energy Management paid a technical management fee to Tsakos Shipping and Trading. For additional information about the management agreement, including the calculation of management fees, see “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions” and our consolidated financial statements which are included as Item 18 to this Annual Report.

Chartering. Our board of directors formulates with management our overall chartering strategy for our subsidiaries’ vessels and Tsakos Shipping, under the supervision of Tsakos Energy Management, implements the strategy by:

Tsakos Shipping utilizes the services of various charter brokers to solicit, research, and propose charters for our vessels. The charter brokers’ role involves researching and negotiating with different charterers and proposing charters to Tsakos Shipping for cargoes to be shipped in our subsidiaries’ vessels. Tsakos Shipping negotiates the exact terms and conditions of charters, such as delivery and re-delivery dates and arranges cargo and country exclusions, bunkers, loading and discharging conditions and demurrage. Tsakos Energy Management is required to obtain our approval for charters in excess of six months and is required to obtain the written consent of the administrative agents for the lenders under our secured credit facilities for charters in excess of thirteen months. There are frequently two or more brokers involved in fixing a vessel on a charter. Brokerage fees typically amount to 2.5% of the value of the freight revenue or time charter hire derived from the charters. A chartering commission of 1.25% is paid to Tsakos Shipping for every charter involving the vessels in the fleet. The total amount paid for these chartering brokerage commissions was $9.7 million in 2024, $11.0 million in 2023 and $10.7 million in 2022. In addition, Tsakos Shipping may charge a brokerage commission on the sale of a vessel. In 2024, the suezmax tankers, Eurochampion 2004, Euronike, the aframax tankers Izumo Princess, Nippon Princess and the LNG carrier, Neo Energy were sold and for this service Tsakos Shipping charged $1.2 million, representing 0.5% of the sale price. In 2023, six handymax tankers, Artemis, Afrodite, Ariadne, Aris, Apollon, Ajax and two handysize tankers Arion and Amphitrite were sold and for this service Tsakos Shipping charged $0.8 million, representing 0.5% of the sale price. In 2022, the aframax tanker Proteas and the panamax tanker Inca were sold and for this service Tsakos Shipping charged $0.3 million, representing 1.0% of the sale price. Tsakos Shipping may also charge a fee on delivery of each new building vessel in payment for the cost of design and supervision of the new building by Tsakos Shipping. In 2024, $1.0 million in aggregate was charged for supervision fees of the aframax tankers Njord DF, Ran DF, Chios DF and Ithaki DF, which were delivered in the third and fourth quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024, respectively. In 2023, $0.5 million in aggregate was charged for supervision fees of the LNG carrier, Tenergy and the DP2 shuttle tanker, Porto, which were delivered in the first and third quarter of 2022, respectively. In 2022, no such fee was charged.

Tsakos Shipping supervises the post fixture business of our vessels, including:

In addition, Tsakos Shipping appoints superintendents to supervise the construction of new buildings and the loading and discharging of cargoes when necessary.

General Administration. Tsakos Energy Management provides us with general administrative, office and support services necessary for our operations and the fleet, including technical and clerical personnel, communication, accounting, and data processing services.

Sale and Purchase of Vessels. Tsakos Energy Management advises our Board of Directors when opportunities arise to purchase, including through new buildings, or to sell any vessels. All decisions to purchase or sell vessels require the approval of our Board of Directors.

Any purchases or sales of vessels approved by our Board of Directors are arranged and completed by Tsakos Energy Management. This involves the appointment of superintendents to inspect and take delivery of vessels and to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the purchase or new building contracts.

In the case of a purchase of a vessel, each broker involved will receive commissions from the seller generally at the industry standard rate of one percent of the purchase price, but subject to negotiation. In the case of a sale of a vessel, each broker involved will receive a commission generally at the industry standard rate of one percent of the sale price, but subject to negotiation. In accordance with the management agreement, Tsakos Energy Management is entitled to charge for sale and purchase brokerage commission, but to date has not done so.

Technical Management

Pursuant to a technical management agreement, Tsakos Energy Management employs TST to manage the day-to-day aspects of tanker operations, including maintenance and repair, provisioning, and crewing of the vessels in the fleet. We benefit from the economies of scale of having our subsidiaries’ vessels managed as part of the TST managed fleet. On occasion, TST subcontracts the technical management and manning responsibilities of our subsidiaries’ vessels to third-parties. The executive and commercial management of our subsidiaries’ vessels, however, is not subcontracted to third-parties. TST employs full-time superintendents, technical experts and marine engineers and has expertise in inspecting second-hand vessels for purchase and sale, and in fleet maintenance and repair. They have approximately 178 employees engaged in ship technical management and approximately 3,000 seafaring employees, of whom approximately 1,300 are employed at sea and the remainder is on leave at any given time. Their principal office is in Athens, Greece. The vessels managed by TST on our behalf consists of tankers.

Tsakos Energy Management pays TST a fee per vessel per month for technical management of operating vessels and vessels under construction. This fee was determined by comparison to the rates charged by other major independent vessel managers. We generally pay all monthly operating requirements of our fleet in advance.

TST performs the technical management of the vessels under the supervision of Tsakos Energy Management. Tsakos Energy Management approves the appointment of fleet supervisors and oversees the establishment of operating budgets and the review of actual operating expenses against budgeted amounts. Technical management of the LNG carriers Maria Energy, Tenergy, the VLCCs Hercules I, Ulysses, Dias I, the suezmax tankers Decathlon and Popi Sazaklis, and the aframax tankers Maria Princess, Ise Princess, Alpes, Aspen, DF Montmartre and DF Mystras are subcontracted to unaffiliated third-party ship managers.

Maintenance and Repair. Each of the vessels is dry-docked once every five years in connection with special surveys and, after the vessel is fifteen years old, the vessel is dry-docked every two and one-half years after a special survey (referred to as an intermediate survey), or as necessary to ensure the safe and efficient operation of such vessels and their compliance with applicable regulations. TST arranges dry-dockings and repairs under instructions and supervision from Tsakos Energy Management. We believe that the continuous maintenance program we conduct results in a reduction of the time periods during which our vessels are in dry-dock.

TST routinely employs on each vessel additional crew members whose primary responsibility is the performance of maintenance while the vessel is in operation. Tsakos Energy Management awards and, directly or through TST, negotiates contracts with shipyards to conduct such maintenance and repair work. They seek competitive tender bids in order to minimize charges to us, subject to the location of our vessels and any time constraints imposed by a vessel’s charter commitments. In addition to dry-dockings, TST, where necessary, utilizes superintendents to conduct periodic physical inspections of our vessels.

Crewing and Employees

We do not employ personnel to run our business on a day-to-day basis. We outsource substantially all our executive, commercial and technical management functions.

TST arranges employment of captains, officers, engineers and other crew who serve on the vessels. TST ensures that all seamen have the qualifications and licenses required to comply with international regulations and shipping conventions and that experienced and competent personnel are employed for the vessels.

Customers

Several of the world’s major oil companies are among our regular customers. The table below shows the approximate percentage of revenues we earned from some of our customers in 2024.

Regulation

Our business and the operation of our vessels are significantly affected by government regulation in the form of international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. Because these conventions, laws, and regulations change frequently, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance or their impact on the resale price and/or the useful lives of our vessels. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business and which may have a material adverse effect on our operations. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain permits, licenses, certificates, and financial assurances with respect to our operations. Subject to the discussion below and to the fact that the kinds of permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances required for the operation of our vessels will depend upon a number of factors, we believe that we have been and will be able to obtain all permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances material to the conduct of our operations. Our vessels may also be subject to regulation by way of taxes or financial payments for liability, in relation to emissions, for example.

The heightened environmental and quality concerns of classification societies, insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers has led to the imposition of increased inspection and safety requirements on all vessels in the tanker market and the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry has been accelerated.

IMO. The International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) has adopted international conventions that impose liability for oil pollution in international waters and in a signatory’s territorial waters, including amendments to Annex I of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) which set forth upgraded requirements for oil pollution prevention for tankers. These regulations are effective in relation to tankers in many of the jurisdictions in which our tanker fleet operates. They provide that: (1) tankers 25 years old and older must be of double-hull construction and (2) all tankers will be subject to enhanced inspections. All of the vessels in our fleet are of double hull construction. The regulations are intended to reduce the likelihood of oil pollution in international waters. These amendments became effective on April 5, 2005.

On January 1, 2007, Annex I of MARPOL was revised to incorporate all amendments since the MARPOL Convention entered into force in 1983 and to clarify the requirements for new and existing tankers.

Regulation 12A of MARPOL Annex I came into force on August 1, 2007 and governs oil fuel tank protection. The requirements apply to oil fuel tanks on all ships with an aggregate capacity of 600 cubic meters and above which are delivered on or after August 1, 2010, and all ships for which shipbuilding contracts were placed on or after August 1, 2007. Since March 1, 2018, Form B of the Supplement to the International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate contained in MARPOL Annex I has been amended to simplify its completion with respect to segregated ballast tanks. Segregated ballast tanks use ballast water that is completely separate from the cargo oil and oil fuel system. Segregated ballast tanks are currently required by the IMO on crude oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight or more constructed after 1982.

MARPOL Annex IV entered into force on September 27, 2003, and a revised Annex IV was adopted on April 1, 2004 and entered into force on August 1, 2005. It requires ships engaged in international voyages, of 400 gross tonnage and above, and certified to carry more than 15 persons to have systems and controls in place to deal with human sewage, for governments to have port reception facilities, and a requirement for survey and certification. Annex IV prohibits the discharge of sewage into the sea, except when the ship has an approved sewage treatment plant in operation or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of three nautical miles from the nearest land.

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from ships. Annex VI came into force on May 19, 2005. It set limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) emissions from ship exhausts and prohibited deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. Annex VI also included a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allowed for the designation of special areas known as Emission Control Areas (“ECAs”) where more stringent controls on sulfur emissions would apply (discussed below in "IMO Emission Control Areas"). Annex VI has been ratified by some, but not all IMO member states. All vessels subject to Annex VI and built after May 19, 2005 must carry an International Air Pollution Prevention (“IAPP”) Certificate evidencing compliance with Annex VI. In October 2008, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (“MEPC”) of the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding particulate matter, NOx and sulfur oxide emissions standards. These amendments, which entered into force in July 2010, seek to reduce air pollution from vessels by establishing a series of progressive standards to further limit the sulfur content in fuel oil, which were fully phased in at the beginning of 2020, and by establishing three tiers of NOx emission standards for new marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. Additionally, more stringent emission standards apply in ECAs. The U.S. ratified the amendments in October 2008. Annex VI was implemented in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”). Annex VI, APPS and implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) impose engine-based and fuel-based standards that apply to U.S. flagged ships wherever located, and to non-U.S. flagged ships operating in U.S. waters, as well as ships operating within the 200 nautical mile border around the U.S., including the North American ECA and the U.S. Caribbean ECA, which encompasses waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The APPS statute requires engine manufacturers, owners and operators of vessels, and other persons to comply with Annex VI of MARPOL. The EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (the “USCG”) enforce these requirements pursuant to authority under APPS, the CAA and a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and the USCG setting forth the terms by which the EPA and the USCG mutually cooperate in enforcement and implementation.

Amendments to Annex VI to address greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from shipping came into force on January 1, 2013. Newbuild vessels of 400 tons or greater are required to meet minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile (the Energy Efficient Design Index (“EEDI”)), while existing vessels were required to implement Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (“SEEMPs”). Amendments and guidelines to both EEDI and SEEMP have since been introduced, including but not limited to the 2022 Guidelines on survey and certification of EEDI, and the 2024 Guidelines for the development of a SEEMP. All our vessels have SEEMPs. The EEDI requirements do not apply to a liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) carrier unless the construction contract for the carrier was placed on or after September 1, 2015. Our LNG carriers comply with EEDI requirements as indicated in the vessels International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificate. Implementing the requirements of Annex VI may require modifications to vessel engines or the addition of post combustion emission controls, or both, as well as the use of lower sulfur fuels. In April 2016, the IMO adopted an amendment to Annex VI regarding requirements for recording operational compliance with NOx Tier III ECAs (discussed in further detail below), and a further amendment to the NOx Technical Code 2008 to facilitate the testing of gas and dual fuel engines. This amendment entered into force on September 1, 2017. Further amendments to the Code came into force on 1 October 2020, governing electronic record books and certification requirements for SCR (selective catalytic reduction) systems. We believe that maintaining compliance with Annex VI will not have a significantly adverse financial impact on the operation of our vessels.

Further amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL were adopted by the MEPC in October 2016, as subsequently further amended. Beginning on January 1, 2019(now) Regulation 27 of chapter 4 of Annex VI added a requirement for ships of 5,000 gross tons and above to collect consumption data for each type of fuel oil used as well as other specified data. The collection method should be set out in the SEEMP and this information must have been submitted to the flag state no later than March 31, 2020. The flag state in turn must submit data to an IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database (IMO DCS). Other regulations were amended to cater to this new requirement, including those related to certificates, surveys and port state control. Amendments to Appendix IX of Annex VI, due to enter into force on 1 August 2025, will add to data reporting requirements under IMO DCS, including: fuel oil consumption while the ship is not under way by fuel oil type, and installation of any innovative technology, which changes are also reflected in the 2024 Guidelines for the development of a SEEMP (as concerns Part II, relating to the ship's Fuel Oil Consumptions Data-Collection Plan).

The MEPC also adopted amendments to Annex VI setting the global limit for sulfur content of ships’ fuel oil to 0.50% mass by mass (“m/m”) as opposed to the former global limit of 3.5% m/m. The new sulfur limit entered into effect on January 1, 2020. From March 1, 2020, ships were not permitted to transport fuels containing more than 0.50% m/m sulfur content for use on board, regardless of whether a ship is operating outside a designated ECA, unless the ship has an approved exhaust cleaning system ("EGCS") or “scrubber” fitted (see also discussion of IMO Emission Control Areas below). This impacts on the rates to be achieved (eg scrubber premium) for vessels, as vessels that are scrubber fitted may be able to achieve higher charter rates. It is not expected that compliance with such regulations will have a material effect on the operation or financial viability of our business. Amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL came into force on April 1, 2022, changing the required procedure in Regulation 14 for sampling and verification of the sulfur content of in-use and on-board fuel oil and installation of on board sampling point or points for in-use fuel. There are other jurisdictions which regulate the sulphur content of fuel used on board.

From April 1, 2022, changes to the reporting requirements on the vessel's required and attained EEDI values contained in what is now Regulation 22, brought forward the effective date of phase 3 requirements to 2022 for several ship types including gas carriers and LNG carriers. New ships built from April 1, 2022, are required to be significantly more energy efficient than the baseline.

On November 1, 2022, new amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL, adopted by the MEPC at its 76th session, entered into force. The amendments impose mandatory short term goal based technical and operational measures designed to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping, in line with the IMO's revised strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships as adopted on July 7, 2023 which incorporates targets for net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by or around 2050 and indicative achievement check-points by at least 20% reduction by 2030 and at least 70% reduction by 2040 (compared to 2008 levels) the reduction of carbon intensity of international shipping by at least 40% by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and the uptake of at least 5% of the international shipping with zero or near-zero GHG emission technologies, fuels and/or energy sources by 2030.The short term GHG reduction measures include the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII). The EEXI effectively extends design requirements under the EEDI to all cargo and cruise ships above 400 GT falling under Annex VI (including tankers and LNG carriers). The vessel's EEXI technical file (proving that the vessel meets the required attained EEXI value) was required to be approved at the vessel's first annual survey after January 2023. The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is an operational efficiency performance rating that is given to all cargo and cruise ships above 5,000 GT falling under Annex VI. The CII rating relates to the carbon intensity of a vessel's operations. Vessels require a new SEEMP Part III that measures the vessel's CII and sets a mandatory annual CII target to be attained via operational compliance steps. The CII metric for calculating a vessel's annual operational carbon intensity is the annual efficiency ratio ("AER"), which considers a vessel's total CO₂ emissions over the vessel's total distance sailed (as deadweight ton miles). A ship's carbon intensity is rated by performance level A (best – major superior) to E (worst – inferior) which is recorded on the SEEMP. If a ship is rated D for three consecutive years or E for one year, it will have to submit a corrective action plan describing how it will achieve rating C or better. Administrations, port authorities and other stakeholders are encouraged by the MEPC to provide incentives to ships rated A or B. The MEPC is to review the effectiveness of these requirements by January 1, 2026 and develop further amendments as required. A review of regulations relating to both CII and EEXI was commenced at MEPC 82 in October 2024. As a result the full financial impact of complying with these measures is not yet clear.

In April 2016, a revised annex to the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (“FAL”) was adopted by the IMO. It contains revised mandatory requirements for the electronic exchange of information on cargo and crew. This electronic exchange of information was mandatory beginning April 9, 2019, with a transition period of no less than 12 months. Other revised standards cover discrimination in respect to shore leave and access to shore-side facilities and updates to recommended practice in relation to stowaways. The revised annex entered into force on January 1, 2018. We comply with these regulations. In May 2022, the IMO's Facilitation Committee adopted amendments to FAL which entered into force on January 1, 2024. These amendments make it mandatory for public authorities to establish, maintain and use single window systems for the electronic exchange of information required on arrival, stay and departure of ships in ports. Public authorities must combine or coordinate the electronic transmission of the data to ensure that information is submitted or provided only once and re-used to the maximum extent possible. The updated annex to the FAL Convention requires Contracting Governments and their relevant public authorities to allow ships and ports to remain fully operational during a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), in order to maintain complete functionality of global supply chains to the greatest extent possible. Public authorities are also required to designate port workers and ships' crew as key workers (or equivalent), regardless of their nationality or the flag of their ship, when in their territory. In March 2023, the IMO's Facilitation Committee adopted amendments to FAL that entered into force on January 1, 2025. The amendments affect the Recommended Practice 7.11 and focus on addressing the need to combat illegal activities in national facilitation programs.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (the “Anti-fouling Convention”) which prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. The Anti-fouling Convention came into force on September 17, 2008 and applies to vessels constructed prior to January 1, 2003 that have not been in dry-dock since that date. Since January 1, 2008, under the Anti-fouling Convention, exteriors of vessels have had to be either free of the prohibited compounds or have had coatings applied that act as a barrier to the leaching of the prohibited compounds. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages must obtain an International Anti-fouling System Certificate and must undergo a survey before the vessel is put into service or when the anti-fouling systems are altered or replaced. Draft amendments to the Anti-fouling Convention were approved by the MEPC in November 2020 and adopted at its 76^th session in June 2021, which prohibits anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne (also known as Irgarol-1051) from January 1, 2023, or for ships which already have such an anti-fouling system, at the next scheduled renewal of the anti-fouling system after January 1, 2023, but no later than 60 months following the last application of the ship of such an anti-fouling system. We fully comply with the provisions of the “Anti-fouling Convention” and we do not believe that we will have an adverse financial impact on the operation of our vessels.

In addition, our LNG carriers meet IMO requirements for liquefied gas carriers including those contained in the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (“ICG Code”), the Existing Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (“EGC Code”) and the Code of the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (“IGC Code”). In order to operate in the navigable waters of the IMO’s member states, liquefied gas carriers must have an IMO Certificate of Fitness demonstrating compliance with construction codes for liquefied gas carriers. These codes, and similar regulations in individual member states, address fire and explosion risks posed by the transport of liquefied gases. Collectively, these standards and regulations impose detailed requirements relating to the design and arrangement of cargo tanks, vents, and pipes; construction materials and compatibility; cargo pressure; and temperature control. In December 2024, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee adopted amendments to chapter 6 of the IGC Code sets out amended requirements for metallic materials used in cargo tanks that will apply to LNG carriers. These amendments are expected to enter into force in 2026. Liquefied gas carriers are also subject to international conventions that regulate pollution in international waters and a signatory’s territorial waters. Under the IMO regulations, gas carriers that comply with the IMO construction certification requirements are deemed to satisfy the requirements of Annex II of MARPOL applicable to transportation of chemicals at sea, which would otherwise apply to certain liquefied gases. With effect from January 1, 2007, the IMO revised the Annex II regulations that restrict discharges of “noxious liquid substances” during cleaning or de-ballasting operations. The revisions include significantly lower permitted discharge levels of noxious liquid substances for vessels constructed on or after the effective date, made possible by improvements in vessel technology. These discharge requirements apply to the Company’s LNG carriers. Since January 1, 2021, Annex II MARPOL has imposed stricter controls on the discharge of noxious liquid substances residues in specified areas (North West European waters, Baltic Sea area, Western European waters and the Norwegian Sea). In these areas prewash and discharge to a port reception facility are required for cargo residues and tank washings containing persistent floating products (for example, certain vegetable oils and paraffin-like cargoes).

Our dual fuel tankers meet IMO requirements of the IGF Code, which stands for the International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels. Our DF vessels have been constructed and meet, apart from SOLAS and MARPOL requirements, the IGF Code requirements. Crew onboard these vessels are also certified with the additional STCW requirements for this type of vessels.

On January 1, 2013, MARPOL Annex V regulations came into force with regard to the disposal of garbage from ships at sea. These regulations prohibit the disposal of garbage at sea other than certain defined permitted discharges or when outside one of the MARPOL Annex V “special areas” in which, for reasons relating to their oceanographical and ecological condition and/or their sea traffic, the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution is required. Under MARPOL, these special areas are provided with a higher level of protection than other areas of the sea. These areas are the: (i) Mediterranean Sea; (ii) Baltic Sea; (iii) Black Sea; (iv) Red Sea; (v) Gulfs area; (vi) North Sea; (vii) Antarctic Sea; and (viii) Wider Caribbean region including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The regulations do not only impact the disposal of “traditional garbage” but also the disposal of harmful hold washing water and cargo residues. Products considered suitable for discharge are those not defined as harmful by the criteria set out in MARPOL Annex III and which do not contain carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic components. We have a protocol in place to ensure that (i) garbage is disposed of in accordance with the Annex V regulations and that the vessels in our fleet maintain records showing that any cleaning agent or additive used was not harmful to the marine environment and (ii) the supplier provides a signed and dated statement to this effect, either as part of a Material Safety Data Sheet (“MSDS”) or as a stand-alone document. Our protocol addresses the Annex V special areas and we do not consider them likely to adversely affect our ability to operate our vessels.

In October 2016, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex V which place responsibility on shippers to determine whether or not their cargo is hazardous to the marine environment (with such categorization to be carried out in accordance with the UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) and introduced a two-part garbage record book which splits cargo residues from garbage other than cargo residues. These amendments entered into force on March 1, 2018. This requirement was extended in December 2022 to vessels of 100 gross tonnage or above and less than 400 gross tonnage. The MEPC has also agreed that by 2025 this amendment will extend to all vessels, including fishing vessels, to support the IMO's commitment to addressing marine plastic litter from ships and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 14. We have policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with these amendments to Annex V.

The technical managers of our fleet vessels have established, implemented, and continue to maintain procedures as well as health, safety, environmental, and energy programs in alignment with the applicable ISO standards such as ISO 9001, 14001, 45001, and 50001. These efforts aim to ensure regulatory compliance, drive continual improvement in health, safety, environmental, and energy performance, eliminate accidents, and minimize environmental impact.

Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could adversely affect our ability to manage our vessels.

In addition, the European Union and countries elsewhere have considered stricter technical and operational requirements for tankers and legislation that would affect the liability of tanker owners and operators for oil pollution. Any additional laws and regulations that are adopted could limit our ability to do business or increase our costs. The results of these or other potential future regulations could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Under the current regulations, the vessels of our existing fleet will be able to operate for substantially all of their respective economic lives. However, compliance with the regulations regarding inspections of all vessels may adversely affect our operations. We cannot at the present time evaluate the likelihood or magnitude of any such adverse effect on our operations due to uncertainty of interpretation of the IMO regulations.

The operation of our vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the IMO’s International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”) which came into effect in relation to oil tankers in July 1998 and which was further amended on July 1, 2010. The ISM Code requires ship owners, ship managers and bareboat (or demise) charterers to develop and maintain an extensive “safety management system” that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. The failure of a shipowner, ship manager or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject that party to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels, and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. All technical managers and vessels in our fleet are certified in accordance with the International Safety Management (ISM) Code.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (“SOLAS”) was amended in November 2012 to incorporate mandatory maximum noise level limits for machinery spaces, control rooms, accommodation and other spaces on board vessels. The amendments came into force on July 1, 2014 and require ships of 1,600 gross tons or more, for which the building contract was placed on or after July 1, 2014 or were constructed on or after January 1, 2015 or will be delivered on or after July 1, 2018 to be constructed to reduce on-board noise and to protect personnel from noise on board ships. All of our vessels comply with existing guidelines, and our new buildings will meet the applicable current and future known requirements.

SOLAS Regulation II-2/4 has been amended to require that ships carrying oil fuel shall prior to bunkering with fuel be provided with a declaration signed and certified by the fuel oil supplier's representative that the oil fuel supplied is in conformity with regulation SOLAS II.2/4.2.1 and with the test method used for determining the flashpoint. These amendments are expected to come into effect on January 1, 2026. SOLAS Regulations II-2/4.5 and II-2/11.6 have been amended to clarify the provisions relating to the secondary means of venting cargo tanks in order to ensure adequate safety against over and under pressurization. SOLAS Regulation II-2/20 relating to the performance of ventilation systems was also amended. These changes apply to all tankers constructed on or after January 1, 2017. All of our tankers constructed on or after January 1, 2017 comply with, and our new buildings will meet, these requirements.

SOLAS Regulation II-2 10.10.1 and 10.10.3 have been amended and require ships constructed on or after July 1, 2014 to be fitted with the following by July 1, 2019: a) compressed air breathing apparatus fitted with an audible alarm and a visual or other device which will alert the user before the volume of the air in the cylinder has been reduced to no less than 200 liters; b) a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for each fire party for fire-fighter’s communication. The two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus must be explosion-proof or intrinsically safe. Fire parties are individuals or groups listed on the muster list. All our vessels comply with these requirements.

Performance standards for Enhanced Group Call (“EGC”) and NAVTEX Equipment have also been amended. Such equipment installed after July 1, 2019 must comply with SOLAS IV/7 and SOLAS IV/14. SOLAS Regulations III/3 and III/20 were amended effective January 1, 2020. From this time, all ships must comply with requirements for maintenance, thorough examination, operational testing, overhaul and repair of lifeboats and rescue boats, launching appliances and release gear contained in SOLAS Chapter III. Amendments to SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-8 requiring appropriate and safe-to-use designs of mooring arrangements, introduction of a maintenance and inspection regime and proper documentation entered into force on January 1, 2024. In addition, amendments to parts B-1, B-2 and B-4 of SOLAS chapter II-1 related to watertight integrity requirements entered into force on January 1, 2024.

Amendments to SOLAS chapters II-1, III, IV and V, and the appendix (Certificates), to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol, the 1994 and 2000 HSC Codes, the 1983 and 2008 SPS Codes and the and the 1979, 1989 and 2009 MODU Codes have been adopted to complete modernization of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and to enable use of modern communication systems in future, as well as amendments to existing related resolutions such as on performance standards for equipment. Amendments to the 1978 SOLAS Protocol concerning the Form of Safety Equipment Certificate for Cargo Ships are expected to apply from 1 January 2026 to ensure harmonization with SOLAS as a result of the GMDSS modernization. Furthermore, amendments to parts A and A-1 of the International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) have been made which relate to loading limits for liquefied gas fuel tanks, amongst other things. Amendments have also been made regarding the protection of fuel supply for liquefied gas fuel tanks, in order to prevent explosions. Further amendments to the IGF Code are expected to enter into force from January 1 2026 for ships using natural gas as fuel and related to the requirements for metallic materials used in fuel tanks.

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (“STCW Convention”) and its associated Code was amended in June 2010 (the “Manila Amendments”) with such amendments entering into force on January 1, 2012, with a five-year transitional period until January 1, 2017. As of 2018 all seafarers are required to meet the STCW standards and be fully certified in accordance with the revised STCW amendments. 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. From January 1, 2017, all of our crew's STCW Convention certificates have been issued, renewed and revalidated in accordance with the provisions of the Manila Amendments.

The Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention 2007 (“Wreck Convention”) entered into force on April 14, 2015. The Wreck Convention provides a legal basis for sovereign states to remove, or have removed, shipwrecks that may have the potential to affect adversely the safety of lives, goods and property at sea, as well as the marine and coastal environment. Further, the Wreck Convention makes ship owners financially liable for wreck removal and requires them to take out insurance or provide other financial security to cover the costs of wreck removal. All of our fleet has complied with the certification requirements stipulated by the Wreck Convention with regards to financial security.

The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention) enters into force on 26 June 2025. Regulations in the Convention cover: the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships for recycling in a safe and environmentally manner; the operation of ship recycling facilities; and the establishment of an enforcement mechanism for ship recycling as well as certification and reporting requirements. To comply with the Hong Kong Convention, ships must keep on board an Inventory of Hazardous Materials that is prepared, verified and updated in line with IMO guidelines. The IMO MEPC has adopted various guidelines relating and ancillary to the Hong Kong Convention.

OPA 90. The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”) established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and clean-up of the environment from oil spills. OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade to the U.S. or its territories or possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which include the U.S.’s territorial sea and its two hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The USCG is the lead federal agency that enforces OPA 90.

Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the oil spill results solely from the act or omission of a third-party, an act of God or an act of war and the responsible party reports the incident and reasonably cooperates with the appropriate authorities) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels. Tsakos Shipping and Tsakos Energy Management would not qualify as “third-parties” because they perform under contracts with us. OPA 90 follows a “polluter pays” principle, and as such, the responsible party is liable for damages under OPA 90 up to statutory liability limits. OPA 90 does allow the responsible party to recover against a third-party based on contractual indemnity or via contribution.

OPA 90 allows for the recovery of a broad category of damages, which are defined broadly to include (1) natural resources damages and the related assessment costs, (2) real and personal property damages, (3) net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and other lost revenues, (4) lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resources damage, (5) net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and (6) loss of subsistence use of natural resources. OPA 90 also expressly excludes the economic loss rule that would normally require a proprietary interest in property before allowing for recovery of economic losses.

OPA 90 incorporates limits on the liability of responsible parties for a spill. OPA 90 adjusts the limits of liability, based on increases in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) at least every three years. As of February 28, 2025, the limits of liability for a double-hulled tanker over 3,000 gross tons are currently the greater of $2,500 per gross ton or $21,521,000.

These limits of liability would not apply if the incident was proximately caused by violation of applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by the responsible party (or its agents or employees or any person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship with the responsible party) or by gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the oil removal activities. We continue to maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability coverage in the amount of $1 billion per incident. A catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available, in which case there could be a material adverse effect on us.

Under OPA 90, with some limited exceptions, all newly built or converted tankers operating in U.S. waters must be built with double-hulls, and existing vessels which do not comply with the double-hull requirement should have been phased out by December 31, 2014. All of our fleet is of double-hull construction.

OPA 90 requires owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under OPA 90. Under the regulations, evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, letter of credit, self-insurance, guaranty or other satisfactory evidence. Under the self-insurance provisions, the ship owner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the U.S. against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility. OPA 90 requires an owner or operator of a fleet of tankers only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the tanker in the fleet having the greatest maximum liability under OPA 90.

OPA 90 specifically permits individual U.S. coastal states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills.

Owners or operators of tankers operating in U.S. waters are required to file vessel response plans with the USCG for approval, and their tankers are required to operate in compliance with such approved plans. These response plans must, among other things, (1) address a “worst case” scenario and identify and ensure, through contract or other approved means, the availability of necessary private response resources to respond to a “worst case discharge”, (2) describe crew training and drills, and (3) identify a qualified individual with full authority to implement removal actions. All our vessels have approved vessel response plans. We intend to comply with all applicable USCG and state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

The U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) applies to spills or releases of hazardous substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, whether on land or at sea. CERCLA imposes joint and several liability, without regard to fault, on the owner or operator of a ship, vehicle or facility from which there has been a release, and on other specified parties. Liability under CERCLA is generally limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 per vessel carrying non-hazardous substances ($5.0 million for vessels carrying hazardous substances), unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.

U.S. Clean Water Act. The U.S. Clean Water Act of 1972 (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in navigable waters 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 90. Additionally, the CWA provides for the potential application of civil or criminal penalties for a pollution incident. Under EPA regulations, vessels must obtain CWA permits for the discharge of ballast water and other substances incidental to normal operation in U.S. territorial or inland waters. Commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length are required to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Vessel General Permit (the “VGP”) to discharge ballast water and other wastewater into U.S. waters by submitting a Notice of Intent (a “NOI”). The most recent VGP (the “2013 VGP”) became effective in December 2013 and then expired on December 18, 2018, although its provisions remain in force, as described below. The 2013 VGP requires vessel owners and operators to comply with a range of best management practices, reporting, record keeping and other requirements for a number of incidental discharge types and incorporates current USCG requirements for ballast water management, as well as supplemental ballast water requirements. The 2013 VGP included ballast water numeric discharge limits and best management practices for certain discharges. On June 11, 2012 the USCG and the EPA published a memorandum of understanding which provides for collaboration on the enforcement of the VGP requirements, and the USCG routinely includes the VGP as part of its normal Port State Control inspections.

On December 4, 2018, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law establishing a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under the CWA. VIDA requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment and requires the USCG to develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years of EPA’s promulgation of standards. Under VIDA, all provisions of the 2013 VGP will remain in force and effect until the USCG regulations are finalized. On October 26, 2020, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Vessel Incident Discharge National Standards of Performance in the Federal Register for public comment. The comment period closed on November 25, 2020.

We comply with the VGP and the record keeping requirements, and we do not believe that the costs associated with obtaining such permits and complying with the associated obligations will have a material impact on our operations.

In August 2021, a Federal Judge in California ordered the EPA to update its regulations about the chemicals that can be used to disperse offshore oil spills. Regulatory revisions were published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2023 and became effective six months later (December 11, 2023).

The Clean Air Act. The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are subject to CAA vapor control and recovery standards for cleaning fuel tanks and conducting other operations in regulated port areas and emissions standards for so-called “Category 3” marine diesel engines operating in U.S. waters. On December 22, 2009, the EPA adopted final emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to MARPOL. As a result, the most stringent engine emissions and marine fuel sulfur requirements of Annex VI will apply to all vessels regardless of flag entering U.S. ports or operating in U.S. waters, and to all U.S. flagged vessels regardless of location. The emission standards apply in two stages: near-term standards for newly-built engines, which have applied since the beginning of 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80% reduction in NOx by 2030, which has applied from the beginning of 2016, requiring the use of emission control technology. In January 2021, the EPA expanded the availability of a proven, modern inspection method for finding and correcting air pollution leaks at large liquid storage tanks. These amendments allow owner/ operators of certain large tanks known as Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels to conduct less cumbersome "in service" inspections of the tanks, without emptying and degassing the storage tank.

As of 1 January 2020, all vessels subject to MARPOL operating in ECAs (defined above) must use fuel with a sulfur content of 0.10%. Those areas comprise: (1) the Baltic Sea area, (2) the North Sea area, (3) the North American Emission Control Area, (4) the United States Caribbean Sea Emission Control area, and (5) the Mediterranean Sea Emission Control Area as further defined in MARPOL (effective 1 May 2025).

Pursuant to MEPC 82 (held in December 2024): (6) the Canadian Artic Emission Control Area and (7) the Norwegian Sea (as each defined in MARPOL) will also be included as ECAs, from 1 March 2026. To comply with said limits, MARPOL Annex VI allows the vessel's Administration (aka flag state) to allow the use of any "fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship …" so long as at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as those requirements, including EGCS (aka scrubbers). The 2021 EGCS Guidelines set out criteria in relation to permissible EGCS. Individual jurisdictions also regulate the use of EGCS which vary (for example from 1 July 2025 ships with open loop scrubbers will be banned from sailing within a range of Danish coastlines. Similarly, use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning systems is also prohibited within Dubai territorial waters).

Since January 1, 2016, NOx after-treatment requirements have also applied.

California implemented a 24 nautical mile zone within which fuel must have a sulfur content of 0.10% or less on January 1, 2014. Currently, the California regulations run in parallel with the emissions requirements in the North American and Caribbean ECAs. Compliance with the North American and Caribbean ECA emission requirements, as well as the possibility that more stringent emissions requirements for marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels will be adopted by the EPA or the states where we operate, could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

Similarly, pursuant to the EU Sulphur Directive, fuel with a sulfur content in excess of 0.1% has not been permitted since January 1, 2015 in any "SOx Emission Control Area" (being any areas defined as such pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI).

At MEPC 80, the MEPC agreed to designate the North-Western Mediterranean Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area ("PSSA"), meaning it can be protected by shipping route measures, which include navigating with particular caution and requirements such as speed reduction measures for ships. 19 PSSAs have been designated including most recently the Nusa Penida Islands and Gili Matra Islands in the Lombok Strait, in 2024.

In addition, the EU Sulphur Directive has since January 1, 2010 banned inland waterway vessels and ships berthing in EU ports from using marine fuels with a sulfur content exceeding 0.1% by mass. The prohibition applies to use in all equipment including main and auxiliary engines and boilers. Some EU Member States also require vessels to record the times of any fuel-changeover operations in the ship’s logbook.

Tier III standards apply to marine diesel engines that are installed on ships which operates in any so-called Nox Tier III emission control area. These areas are: the North American ECA and the United States Caribbean ECA (for qualifying ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016), the Baltic Sea ECA and the North Sea ECA (for qualifying ships constructed on or after 1 January 2021), the Canadian Artic ECA (for qualifying ships constructed on or after 1 January 2025 – effective 1 March 2026), and the Norwegian Sea Emission Control Area (for qualifying ships constructed on or after 1 March 2026). Tier III limits are 80% below Tier I and these cannot be achieved without additional means such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”).

There is an exemption to the Tier III requirement to allow ships fitted with dual-fuel engines or only Tier II engines to be built, converted, repaired or maintained at shipyards located inside NOx ECAs if there is not an available, feasible Tier III engine and retrofitting the Tier II engine is not feasible.

Amendments to MARPOL Annex I (by way of addition of a new regulation 43A) introduce a prohibition on the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in Arctic waters on and after 1 July 2024.

Regulation 18.5 of MARPOL Annex VI requires ships of 400 gross tons and above to have on board a Bunker Delivery Note (“BDN”) which records details (as set forth in Appendix V) of fuel oil delivered and used on board for combustion purposes. The BDN also provides the designation requirements for refiners, importers and distributors. The BDN now includes a selection box obliging the purchaser to obtain a notification from the fuel supplier’s representative that fuel is intended to be used in compliance with MARPOL, if the fuel supplied exceeds the 0.5% sulfur limit.

In December 2022, the MEPC adopted amendments to Annex V making it mandatory to include the flashpoint of fuel oil or a statement that the flashpoint has been measured at or above 70˚C in the BDN. This amendment entered into force on 1 May 2024. At its 80th session, MEPC approved new unified interpretations to Regulations 18.5 and 18.6 of MARPOL Annex VI stating that the BDN is acceptable in either hard copy or electronic format.

HNS Convention. Our vessels also may become subject to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, created in 1996 and as amended by the Protocol adopted in April 2010 (as amended, the “HNS Convention”) if it enters into force. The HNS Convention would create a regime of liability and compensation for damage from hazardous and noxious substances (“HNS”), including a two-tier system of compensation composed of compulsory insurance taken out by shipowners and an HNS fund which comes into play when the insurance is insufficient to satisfy a claim or does not cover an incident. In March 2020, EU ministers signed a declaration highlighting the importance of the ratification of international maritime conventions, including the 2010 HNS Convention with a target of May 2021 for ratification by EU Member States. In May 2020 France passed legislation preparing for the ratification of the HNS Protocol 2010. In January 2022, Estonia became the sixth country to deposit instruments of ratification of the HNS Protocol 2010 (joining Canada, Denmark, Norway, South Africa and Turkey). France and Slovakia ratified the Convention in October 2023, and November 2023 respectively. To date however, the HNS Convention has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to enter into force. Specifically, the Convention requires at least 12 States to ratify or accede to the Protocol, in addition to other conditions. Currently, eight (8) States (Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Norway, South Africa, Slovakia, and Turkey) have consented to be bound by the HNS Convention.

The Maritime Labour Convention. The International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention was adopted in 2006 (“MLC 2006”). The basic aims of the MLC 2006 are to ensure comprehensive worldwide protection of the rights of seafarers (the MLC 2006 is sometimes called the Seafarers’ Bill of Rights) and to establish a level playing field for countries and ship owners committed to providing decent working and living conditions for seafarers, protecting them from unfair competition on the part of substandard ships. The MLC 2006 was ratified on August 20, 2012, and all our vessels were certified by August 2013, as required. Since January 18, 2017, all ships which are subject to the MLC have been required to carry and display on board two certificates confirming that financial security is in place for a) shipowners’ liabilities in the event of abandonment and b) contractual payments for death or long-term disability, as set out in relevant the employment agreement. As of December 26, 2020, shipowners are obliged to pay wages and other entitlements to seafarers where the seafarer is held captive as a result of piracy or armed robbery. The 2022 amendments to the Code of the MLC 2006 set requirements for repatriation of seafarers including those deemed abandoned, provision of internet access on board as far as reasonable practicable as well as health and safety protection. The MLC 2006 requirements have not had, and we do not expect that the MLC 2006 requirements will have, a material effect on our operations. All our vessels comply with the 2022 amendments to the Code of the MLC 2006.

In September 2005, the European Union adopted legislation to incorporate international standards for ship-source pollution into European Community law and to establish penalties for discharge of polluting substances from ships (irrespective of flag). Since April 1, 2007, Member States of the European Union have had to ensure that illegal discharges of polluting substances, participation in and incitement to carry out such discharges are penalized as criminal offences and that sanctions can be applied against any person, including the master, owner and/or operator of the polluting ship, found to have caused or contributed to ship-source pollution “with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence” (this is a lower threshold for liability than that applied by MARPOL, upon which the ship-source pollution legislation is partly based). In the most serious cases, infringements will be regarded as criminal offences (where sanctions include imprisonment) and will carry fines of up to Euro 1.5 million. On November 23, 2005 the European Commission published its Third Maritime Safety Package, commonly referred to as the Erika III proposals, and two bills (dealing with the obligation of Member States to exchange information among themselves and to check that vessels comply with international rules, and with the allocation of responsibility in the case of accident) were adopted in March 2007. The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on December 1, 2009 following ratification by all 27 European Union member states and identifies protection and improvement of the environment as an explicit objective of the European Union. The European Union adopted its Charter of Fundamental Rights at the same time, declaring high levels of environmental protection as a fundamental right of European Union citizens. Additionally, the sinking of the Prestige in 2002 has led to the adoption of other environmental regulations by certain European Union Member States. It is impossible to predict what legislation or additional regulations, if any, may be promulgated by the European Union or any other country or authority.

The EU has also adopted legislation that (1) requires member states to refuse access to their ports by certain substandard vessels, according to vessel type, flag and number of previous detentions; (2) obliges member states to inspect at least 25.0% of vessels using their ports annually and increase surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment; (3) provides the EU with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies; and (4) requires member states to impose criminal sanctions for certain pollution events, such as the unauthorized discharge of tank washings.

Furthermore, the Environmental Crime Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law) entered into force on 20 May 2024. The Environmental Crime Directive establishes minimum rules for the definition of criminal offences in EU Member States in relation to the environment and a minimum denominator for sanctions for environmental crimes.

The Council of the EU has approved the implementation of its 2013 strategy for integrating maritime transport emissions into the EU’s GHG reduction policies, and Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide (“CO₂”) emissions from maritime transport was adopted on April 29, 2015. It obliges owners of vessels over 5,000 gross tons to monitor emissions for each ship on a per voyage and annual basis, from January 1, 2018. There are provisions for monitoring, reporting and verifying (“MRV”) of CO₂ emissions from vessels using EU ports, to apply from January 1, 2018. From 2019, by April 30 each year all ships above 5,000 gross tons, regardless of flag, calling at EU ports must submit a verified emissions report annually to the European Commission and the vessel’s flag state. From 2019, by June 30 each year vessels must carry a valid Document of Compliance (“DOC”) confirming compliance with Regulation (EU) 2015/757 for the prior reporting period. This DOC must be made available for inspection at EU ports. From 1 January 2024, vessels are now also required to monitor and report methane and nitrous oxide emissions in line with an updated monitoring plan. Individual Member States have started to introduce CO₂ emissions legislation for vessels. The French Transport Code has required vessel operators to record and disclose the level of CO₂ emitted during the performance of voyages to or from a destination in France since October 1, 2013.

On 31 January 2020, the UK withdrew from the EU and has become an independent sovereign nation. A transition period applied until 31 December 2020, during which EU law continued to apply in the UK. Since then, the UK has had a new relationship with the EU based on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

On 16 July 2020, the European Commission published a notice to stakeholders that explained the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU associated with the EU monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions data for shipping. Based on this the Regulation EU 2015/757 on Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions from Maritime Transport would not longer apply to the UK but operators will still need to collect data on voyages between the UK and EEA and vice-versa for input into the existing EU MRV regime.

Although the UK is no longer part of the EU MRV regime, the EU Regulation which established that regime (Regulation (EU) 2015/757) was retained in domestic law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, subject to amendments needed to make it operable in a UK-only context.

As such the UK MRV regime is an identical monitoring reporting and verification system to the EU regulation that applies to voyages between two UK ports, voyages between a UK and non-EEA port and emissions generated at a UK port. The rest of the compliance obligations remained identical as described under the EU MRV regime.

Moreover, as a result of the UK’s withdrew from the EU, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) replaced the UK’s participation in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme on January 1^st, 2021. The UK ETS aims to incorporate the scheme to the maritime sector from 2026.

The European Green Deal, details of which were issued in December 2019, included proposals to include emissions from the shipping sector into the EU Emissions Trading System (“ETS”). In July 2021, the European Climate Law, which sets out a proposed framework to implement the EU’s aim of being climate neutral by 2050, entered into force According to Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, in order to mainstream the use of renewable energy in the transport sector. The share of renewable energy within the final consumption of energy in the transport sector is set to be at least 42.5 % by 2030 (minimum share).

In July 2021, the EU Commission submitted its 'Fit for 55' package, consisting of several legislative proposals to ensure EU legislation is in line with the EU's climate goals under the European Green Deal. Two key proposals were the inclusion of qualifying GHG emissions (presently only carbon emissions) from maritime transport in the (existing) EU ETS from 2023 and FuelEU Maritime, a new proposal targeting the GHG intensity of the energy used on board a vessel on a well to wake basis.

The amended EU ETS Directive has applied to cargo and passenger ships of 5,000GT and above since January 1, 2024, and applies to 100% of carbon emissions from voyages between EU ports and 50% of carbon emissions from voyages between an EU port and a non-EU port. The EU ETS is a 'cap and trade' system, where participants purchase allowances via an auction process (or via allocation free of charge), for the purpose of retiring sufficient allowances each year to comply with EU ETS. Surplus allowances can be traded with other participants on a secondary market. An allowance entitles the holder to emit one tonne of CO2 and each year participants must surrender the requisite amount of allowances corresponding to their verified annual of qualifying emissions (monitored, reported and verified in accordance with the MRV (which was also amended in 2023) for the previous reporting calendar year or face paying a financial penalty plus the balance of outstanding allowances. The responsible party is obliged to surrender allowances in accordance with a phase in period: 40% in 2025 for verified emissions relating to the reporting period of 2024, 70% in 2026 for verified emissions relating to the reporting period of 2025 and 100% in 2027 (and every year after) for verified emissions relating to the reporting period of 2026. However, from 2026 qualifying GHG emissions will include nitrous oxides and methane in addition to carbon emissions. It is important to note that the EU ETS provides for means by which the party responsible for compliance costs (which is usually the shipowner, but may be another entity that has assumed responsibilities under the ISM Code and to whom responsibility under EU ETS has been mandated in writing) can request reimbursement from those entities who, pursuant to an underlying physical contract, have contracted to purchase and supply fuel to the vessel or otherwise have assumed operational control of the ship, such as the charterers, for costs in relation to compliance with the EU ETS. We are taking steps to comply with the EU ETS and are continuing to comply with the MRV. It is not expected that compliance with such regulations will have a material effect on the operation or financial viability of our business as we are seeking to pass on the costs of EU ETS compliance to charterers under contractual arrangements, especially on the vessels under time charters. From 2027 EU ETS will be expanded to include offshore ships of 5,000GT and above, and inclusion of offshore and general cargo ships of 400 - 5,000GT are to be considered as part of the review of EU ETS to take place by 2026.

The Fuel EU Maritime Regulation entered into force on 1 January 2025 and sets an annual GHG intensity limit on maritime fuels and other energy used on board vessels above 5,000GT that transport cargo or passengers, arriving at or departing from EU ports.

Under FuelEU Maritime the entity with responsibility for the vessel under the ISM Code; (the technical ship manager) is required to: (1) comply with the annual GHG intensity limit for fuel and energy set by FuelEU Maritime (requiring the monitoring and recording of emissions on an annual basis (each year a "Reporting Period"), on a Well-To-Wake ("WtW") basis), confirmed by the recording of a verified annual compliance balance on the FuelEU Database before 1 May of the following year (the "Verification Period"); (2) from 2030, comply with provisions relating the mandatory use of onshore power supply for passenger and container vessels; and (3) where it is established that the uptake of renewable fuels of non-biological origin ("RFNBO") for the Reporting Period 2031 is less than 1% across the shipping sector, comply with a sub-target of RFNBOs to be used on board equal to 2% of its yearly energy consumption, from 2034 onwards.

For the purpose of monitoring and recording, WtW emissions for voyages are counted in the same way as those for the EU ETS (see above).

Starting from 2026 calendar year for the 2025 reporting period and thereafter for every subsequent reporting period, the following key stages are required during each Verification Period: By 31 January, each company must provide its verifier with a ship-specific FuelEU Report containing ship and voyage-related information in respect of the recent Reporting Period. By 31 March the verifier must calculate and notify the company of the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used on board the ship, the ship's compliance balance, and other information. Before 1 May the verifier must record each company's verified GHG intensity compliance balance on the FuelEU Database. Companies whose verified compliance balance does not meet the annual GHG intensity limit ("Deficit Vessels"), are subject to a penalty of EUR 2,400 per tonne of VLSFO energy equivalent, in respect of any negative balance (a "Compliance Deficit"), payable by 30 June of the Verification Period. By the same date the verifier will issue a FuelEU Document of Compliance ("DOC") to all vessels that do not have a compliance Deficit, or have paid any Penalty owed, which will remain valid for 18 months or until the next DOC is issued, whichever is earlier.

To facilitate compliance, between 31 March and 30 April FuelEU Maritime allows companies to make use any of three flexibility mechanisms (and more than one, where compatible): (1) borrowing (whereby Deficit Vessels may borrow compliance surplus from the following Reporting Period, in exchange for a multiplier to the Compliance Deficit in the year from which Surplus was borrowed); (2) banking, where by compliant Vessels ("Surplus Vessels"), may transfer any excess positive balance ("Compliance Surplus"), for use in the next Reporting Period; and (3) pooling, whereby Surplus Vessels can transfer Compliance Surplus to Deficit Vessels, subject to ensuring that the pool formed, as a whole, is compliant.

Unlike EU ETS, no direct statutory recourse exists for the company against time charterer (or other entity ultimately responsible for the purchase of the of the fuel or commercial operation of the ship), under FuelEU Maritime. Instead, if the company wishes to pass costs of FuelEU Maritime down to the operator of the vessel, this must be achieved by contractual arrangements (in both time and voyage charterparties), requiring (in most cases) amendments to contracts. It is expected that compliance with such regulations will have a substantial impact on the operation or financial viability of our business.

The EU has introduced the European Ship Recycling Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1257/2013), aimed at minimizing adverse effects on health and the environment caused by ship recycling, as well as enhancing safety, protecting the marine environment and ensuring the sound management of hazardous waste. The Regulation entered into force on November 20, 2013 and aimed at facilitating early ratification of the IMO “Hong Kong Convention” (see above).

From December 31, 2020, the Ship Recycling Regulation requires vessels flying the flag of EU Member States to maintain detailed records of hazardous materials on board, with some materials such as asbestos being restricted or prohibited. This obligation extends to all non-EU flagged vessels calling at a port or anchorage in an EU Member State. A certified inventory of hazardous materials (“IHM”) first requires a survey carried out by the shipowner or a hazardous materials experts, and then the relevant flag state administration to issue a statement of compliance to the vessel after verifying the IHM. The IHM is subject to periodic checks during renewal surveys every five years and during port state control inspections. The European Ship Recycling Regulation also requires EU-flagged vessels to be scrapped only in approved recycling facilities and grants an EU Member State the right to detain, dismiss or exclude non-compliant vessels from their ports or offshore terminals. Amendments to the European Ship Recycling Regulation with regard to electronic reporting were made in 2018. On 19 February 2025, the EU Commission published the results of its first evaluation of the Shipping Recycling Regulation to the EU Council and Parliament. The report noted that the Regulation was largely consistent with the Hong Kong Convention but recognized the need to streamline reporting and certification requirements to avoid any unnecessary administrative burden arising from the co-existence of the Ship Recycling Regulation and the Hong Kong Convention.

Many countries have ratified and follow the liability scheme adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, as amended (“CLC”), and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of 1971, as amended (“Fund Convention”). The U.S. is not a party to these conventions. Under these conventions, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain complete defenses. The liability regime was increased (in limit and scope) in 1992 by the adoption of Protocols to the CLC and Fund Convention which became effective in 1996. The Fund Convention was terminated in 2002, but the Supplementary Fund Protocol was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in March 2005. The liability limit in the countries that have ratified the 1992 CLC Protocol is tied to a unit of account which varies according to a basket of currencies. Under an amendment to the 1992 CLC Protocol that became effective on November 1, 2003, for vessels of 5,000 to 140,000 gross tons, liability is limited to approximately $2.6 million plus approximately $0.4 million for each additional gross ton over 5,000. For vessels of over 140,000 gross tons, liability is limited to approximately $66.7 million. As the Convention calculates liability in terms of IMF Special Drawing Rights, these figures are based on currency exchange rates on March 29, 2024. From May 1998, parties to the 1992 CLC Protocol ceased to be parties to the CLC due to a mechanism established in the 1992 CLC Protocol for compulsory denunciation of the “old” regime; however, the two regimes will co-exist until the 1992 CLC Protocol has been ratified by all original parties to the CLC. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the owner’s actual fault and under the 1992 CLC Protocol where the spill is caused by the owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. The 1992 CLC Protocol channels more of the liability to the owner by exempting other groups from this exposure. Vessels trading to states that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that convention. P&I Clubs will cover the liability under the plan adopted by IMO.

The U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”) was enacted in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. ports through ballast water taken on by ships in foreign ports. Under NISA, the USCG adopted regulations in July 2004 establishing a national mandatory ballast water management program for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that enter or operate in U.S. waters. These regulations require vessels to maintain a specific ballast water management plan. The requirements can be met by performing mid-ocean ballast exchange, by retaining ballast water on board the ship, or by using environmentally sound alternative ballast water management methods approved by the USCG. However, mid-ocean ballast exchange is mandatory for ships heading to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay, or vessels engaged in the foreign export of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. Mid-ocean ballast exchange is the primary method for compliance with the USCG regulations, since holding ballast water can prevent ships from performing cargo operations upon arrival in the U.S., and alternative methods are still under development. Vessels that are unable to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange due to voyage or safety concerns may discharge minimum amounts of ballast water (in areas other than the Great Lakes and the Hudson River), provided that they comply with record keeping requirements and document the reasons they could not follow the required ballast water management requirements. The USCG adopted allowable concentration limits for living organisms in ballast water discharges in U.S. waters, effective June 21, 2012. All newly constructed vessels must be compliant on delivery. All existing vessels must be compliant at their first scheduled drydock after January 1, 2016 or, in the case of vessels with ballast water capacity of 1,500 – 5,000 cubic meters, their first scheduled drydock after January 1, 2014. The USCG must approve any ballast water management technology before it can be placed on a vessel, and a list of approved equipment can be found on the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (“CGMIX”) web page. As of April 1, 2024, there were fifty-three treatment systems which have obtained USCG type approval. Several U.S. states, such as California, have also adopted more stringent legislation or regulations relating to the permitting and management of ballast water discharges compared to EPA regulations.

At the international level, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments in February 2004 (the “BWM Convention”). The BWM Convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. Under the BWM Convention, all ships in international traffic are required to manage their ballast water on every voyage by either exchanging it or treating it using an approved ballast water treatment system. All ships have to carry an approved Ballast Water Management Plan and a Ballast Water Record Book, and all ships of 400 gross tons and above have to be surveyed and issued with an International Ballast Water Management Certificate. The BWM Convention sets out two standards of compliance, D1 and D2. The D1 standard requires ships to exchange ballast water in open seas away from coastal areas. The D2 standard in Regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention outlines the standard that ballast water treatment systems must meet. The standards involve maximum levels of certain microorganisms, such as plankton and intestinal enterococci, for given amounts of ballast water. All ships must maintain the D1 standard until required to comply with the D2 standard. All ships constructed after entry into force of the BWM Convention (September 8, 2017) will have to be compliant on delivery with the D2 standard. Existing ships are required to be compliant with the D2 standard by their first International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey on or after September 8, 2017. Ships constructed before September 8, 2017 are required to comply with the D2 standard at the first IOPP renewal survey on or after September 8, 2019. All ships must have installed a ballast water treatment system which is compliant with the D2 standard by September 8, 2024. The IOPP renewal survey refers to the renewal survey associated with the IOPP Certificate required under MARPOL Annex I. The BWM Convention does not apply to ships not carrying ballast water, domestic ships, ships that only operate in waters under the jurisdiction of one party to the BWM Convention and on the high seas, warships, naval auxiliary or other ships owned or operated by a state, or permanent ballast water in sealed tanks on ships. Furthermore, flag administrators may issue exemptions from the BWM Convention for ships engaged on occasional or one-off voyages between specified ports or locations, or ships that operate exclusively between specified ports or locations, such as ferries. Amendments to the BWM Convention came into force on June 1, 2022. These include changes to the form of the IBWM certificate and rules requiring commissioning testing of ballast water management systems at the ship's initial survey or during an additional survey for retrofits. This test is required before the BWM certificate for D-2 is issued, but does not apply to ships that already have a certified ballast water management system installed.

Various proposals for ballast water management were made at MEPC 79. Draft amendments to Appendix II of the Annex to the BWM Convention were approved at MEPC 79, as well as a unified interpretation of paragraph 4.10 of the BWMS Code, and a revised unified interpretation of regulation E-1.1.5 of the BWM Convention and the Form of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate. Final approval was also granted at MEPC 79 to two ballast water management systems which make use of Active Substances.

MEPC 80 saw the approval of the Convention Review Plan, as well as adoption of amendments to Appendix II of the Annex to the BWM Convention, on the Form of Ballast Water Record Book. The new form of the Ballast Water Record Book applies from 1 February 2025. A unified interpretation of the form of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate (IBWMC), and of regulations B-3.5 and B-3.10 (regarding the date of construction for ships which have undergone conversion) of the BWM Convention were also approved. Final approval was also granted at MEPC 80 to two ballast water management systems which make use of Active Substances.

MEPC 81 adopted a resolution on Interim guidance on the application of the BWM Convention to ships operating in challenging water quality conditions. MEPC 81 also approved Guidance on temporary storage of treated sewage and/or grey water in ballast water tanks, and adopted amendments to regulations A-1 and B-2 of the BWM Convention on electronic record books, which apply from 1 October 2025.

MEPC 82 approved the 2024 Guidance on ballast water record-keeping and reporting as well as the 2024 Guidance for Administrations on the type approval process for ballast water management systems.

Our vessels comply with the BWM Convention in accordance with its terms, though the cost of compliance has resulted in us incurring costs to install approved ballast water treatment systems on our vessels.

In November 2014 the IMO adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (the “Polar Code”) and related amendments to SOLAS to make it mandatory. The Polar Code comprises of detailed requirements relating to safety, design, construction, operations, training and the prevention of environmental pollution. The Polar Code applies to all shipping and maritime operations in the defined waters of the Antarctic and Arctic, apart from fishing boats, ships under 500 tons and fixed structures. The Polar Code entered into force on January 1, 2017 and applies to new ships constructed after that date. Ships constructed before January 1, 2017 are required to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by their first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after January 1, 2018. The Polar Code brings with it numerous requirements and necessities for all ships trading in the polar regions and therefore a great deal of investment will be needed to operate in this region. It is our intention to comply with the Polar Code as implemented through MARPOL and SOLAS and with the applicable training requirements of the STCW Convention.

MARPOL Annex I regulation 43 concerning special requirements for the use or carriage of oils in the Antarctic area to prohibit ships from carrying heavy grade oil on board as ballast, came into force on March 1, 2016. In June 2021 the MEPC adopted draft amendments to MARPOL Annex I, which add a new Regulation 43A introducing a prohibition on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil by ships in Arctic waters from July 1, 2024. Ships with fuel oil tanks located inside the double hull would need to comply on and after July 1, 2029.

In December 2022, the MEPC also adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex I, Annex II, Annex IV, Annex V, and Annex VI to allow States with ports in the Arctic region to enter into regional arrangements for port reception facilities, which apply from May 1, 2024.

In 2023, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 107) adopted initial amendments to the Polar Code, along with related changes to SOLAS. These amendments introduce new safety and voyage planning requirements for, among others, cargo ships between 300 and 500 GT operating in polar waters. These changes are set to take effect on January 1, 2026.

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force. Although the Kyoto Protocol required adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of GHGs, emissions of GHGs from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol. No new treaty was adopted at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Cancun in December 2010. The Kyoto Protocol was extended to 2020 at the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference, with the hope that a new treaty would be adopted in 2015 to come into effect in 2020. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2020. We refer to the discussion above of the regulation of GHG emissions from ocean-going vessels under the CAA and EU GHG emissions regulations. The IMO, the EU or individual countries in which we operate could pass climate control legislation or implement other regulatory initiatives to control GHG emissions from vessels that could require us to make significant financial expenditures or otherwise limit our operations. Even in the absence of climate control legislation and regulations, our business may be materially affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or more intense weather events.

The Hong Kong Air Pollution Control (Marine Light Diesel) Regulations, which entered into force on April 1, 2014, provide that the sulfur content of marine light diesel supplied to vessels in Hong Kong must contain 0.05% sulfur content or less. From January 1, 2019, the Hong Kong Air Pollution Control (Fuel for Vessels) Regulation has required all vessels, irrespective of whether they are sailing or berthing, to use fuel containing 0.5% sulfur content or less or any other fuel approved by the Director of Environment Protection. Vessels equipped with scrubbers may apply for an exemption.

From January 1, 2019, vessels must switch to fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% prior to entering China’s territorial sea. From March 1, 2020 vessels in Chinese waters must not carry fuel oil with a sulfur content exceeding 0.5%. From July 1, 2019, vessels other than tankers capable of receiving shore power must use shore power whilst in China’s coastal and inland ECAs (the Yangtze and Xi Jiang Rivers) if berthing for more than 3 hours and 2 hours, respectively. While in China’s coastal and inland ECAs, vessels may not discharge effluent from open loop exhaust gas cleaning systems. From January 1, 2020, vessels entering China’s inland ECAs must use fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.1% while operating within the inland ECA. From January 1, 2022, vessels must use fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.1% while operating within the Hainan Coastal ECA. Ships of over 400 gross tons or more or powered by engines of 750 kilowatts or more calling at a port in China must report the energy consumption data of their last voyage to the China Maritime Safety Administration before leaving port.

From January 1, 2019, ships not fitted with scrubbers are required to burn fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% when entering Taiwan’s international commercial port areas.

In December 2015, representatives of 195 countries met at the Paris Climate Conference (“COP 21”) and adopted a universal and legally binding climate deal commonly known as the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement contemplates commitments from each nation party thereto to take action to reduce GHG emissions and limit increases in global temperatures but did not include any restrictions or other measures specific to shipping emissions. The governments agreed to the goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius and to aim, if possible, to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Governments also agreed to reconvene every 5 years to reassess the targets. Governments will be required to report to each other on their progress and the steps they have taken to reach their targets. The Paris Agreement came into force on November 4, 2016, and as of February 2025, 195 of the 198 parties to the Paris Agreement have ratified it. On June 1, 2017, the U.S. President announced that the U.S. intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. On November 4, 2019, the U.S. submitted formal notification of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which took effect on November 4, 2020. On February 19, 2021, the U.S. re-entered the Paris Agreement. On 20 January 2025, the U.S. President signed an Executive Order recommencing withdrawal of the United States from any commitment made under the UNFCCC (including the Paris Agreement). Under the Paris Agreement the United States' withdrawal will become effective one year from notification by the US Ambassador to the United States (or at a later date specified in the withdrawal notice). With growing pressure being placed on the IMO to implement measures to aid the objectives agreed at the COP 21, the shipping industry has been subject to further regulation as a result of COP 21 and subsequent COP meetings. This has included initiatives from both the shipping industry and national governments, such as the Call to Action for Shipping Decarbonization (which more than 200 companies has signed), the Clydebank Declaration for Green Shipping Corridors (signed by over 20 countries) and the proposal from the International Chamber of Shipping for an IMO Maritime Research Fund to invest in research and development of zero-carbon technologies for ships.

COP27 held in Egypt in November 2022 was the last COP before the IMO's MEPC met in December 2022 for its 79^th session and before it met in Spring 2023 to decide its final GHG emissions strategy (see below). Prior to this, in April 2018 the MEPC adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships. The initial strategy aims to reduce the total GHG emissions from ships, based upon emissions in 2008, by at least 50% by 2050, while at the same time pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely. In keeping with IMO’s initial strategy, IMO committed to having in place by 2023 short-term measures (such as the EEXI, CII rating and enhanced SEEMP as set out above) and by 2030 mid-term measures intended to meet the stated goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from shipping by 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050, and GHG emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050.

A follow-up program approved by the MEPC in October 2018 is intended to act as a three-stage planning tool in meeting the timelines identified in the initial strategy. The January 1, 2019, amendments to Regulation 22A (now Regulation 27) of chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI, discussed above, requiring ships of 5,000 gross tons and above to collect consumption data for each type of fuel oil they use, are part of these initiatives. Chapter 4 of MARPOL Annex VI imposes mandatory operational and technical carbon intensity requirements upon qualifying ships to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping, as discussed above, which are part of these initiatives. There have also been proposals for a form of emissions levy or tax, with the funds raised being used to support either development of new emissions reducing technologies and alternative fuels or a climate change mitigation fund for vulnerable countries. A number of proposals were discussed at MEPC77 in November 2021 and were referred to the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships for further review. This Intersessional Working Group met in December 2022 and established a Working Group on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships (the "Working Group"). The Working Group committed to a strengthened level of ambition for the IMO's revised Strategy for Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships by MEPC 80. The MEPC also invited and encouraged voluntary action plans and cooperation to contribute to reducing GHG emissions from ships. The present United States administration has abandoned net zero policies. COP29 was held in Baku in November 2024, and the most recent MEPC, MEPC 82, was held between 30 September – 4 October 2024 (details of which are included in this document, under the relevant headings). The Company is monitoring these developments and their potential impact.

Updates from MEPC 80 and MEPC 81 included the adoption of the Revised IMO GHG Strategy and the LCA Guidelines, adoption of amendments to the Ballast Water Management Convention, the adoption of revised Guidelines in relation to underwater noise and biofouling management, and agreement of the effective date in relation to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden special areas under MARPOL Annexes I and V at MEPC 80. At MEPC 81, a draft outline of a possible IMO net-zero framework was contemplated including a proposed new Chapter 5 of MARPOL Annex VI to include the MTMs (defined below).

Also adopted at MEPC 81 were amendments to MARPOL Protocol 1 in relation to the reporting of lost containers expected to enter into force on 1 January 2026, and related draft SOLAS chapter V amendments requiring the master of ships involved in loss of freight container incidents to communicate with the nearest coastal State and flag State about the incident, which are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2026.

MEPC 81 also adopted amendments to regulation 13.2.2 of MARPOL Annex VI on a marine diesel engine replacing a steam system, with amendments expected to come into force on 1 August 2025.

At MEPC 82 (as referred to above) further progress was made, including: the production of a draft IMO net-zero framework (see further below) to be used at future talks, the scheduling of Intersessional Work Group meetings ISWG-GHG 18 and 19 (see further below) to discuss the IMO's mid-term measures, commencement of review of the EEXI and CII regulations, adoption of the 2024 Guidelines for the development of a SEEMP, adoption of Guidelines on recommendatory Black Carbon emission measurement, monitoring and reporting and approval of draft amendments to appendix IX of MARPOL Annex VI, among others.

The Revised IMO GHG Strategy states that a basket of mid-term GHG reduction measures should be developed and finalized comprising (1) a technical element, namely a goal-based marine fuel standard; and (2) an economic element, based on a maritime GHG emissions pricing mechanism. It should take into account the well-to-wake GHG emissions of marine fuels, as addressed in the LCA guidelines (below) (the "MTMs").

Progress on the development of the MTMs was made at MEPC82 in December 2024.

Further development of the candidate MTMs ahead of MEPC83 was attempted by an intersessional working group (ISWGGHG 18) in February 2025, and a further meeting (ISWG-GHG19) is to take place in March 2023.

Once agreed the mid-term measures are expected to appear in a new chapter 5 to MARPOL Annex VI, entitled the "IMO net-zero framework", currently under development (as mentioned above).

As mentioned above, the LCA Guidelines were adopted at MEPC81 in March 2024. The Guidelines provide a framework to assess the GHG intensity of all possible marine fuels and energy carriers, on a WtW basis, in relation to carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

The Guidelines (1) include default emission factors, and a methodology for using actual emission factors (subject to third-party verification and certification), and (2) introduce the concept of a Fuel Lifecycle Label to collect relevant information (including fuel type, pathway code, blend and lower calorific value) and convey sustainability certification.

On June 29, 2017, the Low Carbon Global Industry Alliance (the “GIA”) was officially inaugurated. The GIA was a program, under the Global Environmental Facility-United Nations Development Program-IMO project (GEF-UNDP-IMO GloMEEP Project), which supports shipping, and related industries, as they move towards a low carbon future. The GIA includes 18 members including, but not limited to, shipowners, operators, classification societies, and oil companies. Following completion of the GloMEEP Project in December 2019, the GIA was re-established and continues to operate under the framework of IMO GreenVoyage2050.

In June 2017, the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee adopted requirements for cyber-risk management systems to be incorporated and implemented by ship owners and managers by 2021. U.S. agencies have indicated that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. Compliance might require companies to cultivate additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures.

The impact of these requirements on our business and operations, including any necessary capital expenditures, is difficult to accurately predict at this time.

Our vessels may be chartered or sub-chartered to parties, or call on ports, located in countries that are subject to restrictions and sanctions imposed by the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions.

Certain countries (including certain regions of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria), entities and persons are targeted by economic sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions, and a number of those countries, currently North Korea, Iran and Syria, have been identified as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. Department of State. Such economic sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application with regard to countries, entities or persons and the scope of activities they subject to sanctions. These sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be strengthened, relaxed or otherwise modified over time. In particular, sanctions imposed in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have created significant disruptions in the global economy and in the shipping industry.

While it is difficult to estimate the impact of the conflict and current or future sanctions on our business and financial position, these events and related sanctions could adversely impact our operations. In recent years, economic sanctions were imposed by the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom and a number of other countries on Russian financial institutions, businesses and individuals, as well as certain regions within the Donbas region of Ukraine. Certain of these sanctions have targeted Russia’s usage of and participation in maritime shipping. For example, the United Kingdom and the EU have introduced export restrictions, which capture the provision of maritime vessels and supplies to or for use in Russia. They have also imposed restrictions on providing financing, financial assistance, technical assistance and brokering or other services that would further the provision of vessels to or for use in Russia, including the provision of maritime navigation goods. Import bans of Russian energy products, such as coal, crude oil and refined petroleum products, and commodities, such as coal, iron, steel, plastics, cement and agricultural products including potash and fertilizer, have also been introduced by a number of jurisdictions. In addition, certain jurisdictions, such as Greece and the United States, have temporarily detained vessels suspected of violating sanctions. Countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the EU, have also broadly prohibited Russian-affiliated vessels from entering their waters and/or ports. In light of the current regulatory and economic environment in the region, certain vessel operators have temporarily suspended shipping routes to and from Russia or have declined to engage in business with Russian-affiliated entities.

These bans and related trade sanctions have started to change trade patterns across the shipping industry and existing or future restrictions may affect our current or future charters. In the near term, we have seen, and expect to continue to see, increased volatility in the region due to these geopolitical events. In addition, the volatility of market prices for fuel and energy products have increased as a result of related supply disruptions from the war in Ukraine. While uncertainty remains with respect to the ultimate impact of the conflict, we have seen, and anticipate continuing to see, significant changes in trade flows. A reduction or stoppage of grain out of the Black Sea or cargoes from Russia has, and will continue to, negatively impact the markets in those areas. In addition, increased volatility in the price of fuel or energy commodities may increase or decrease the price of fuel used by our vessels and/or demand for LNG or other goods we transport, each of which could affect our operations and liquidity. Due to their effect on the global market for LNG or other goods that we transport, current or additional sanctions could have a material adverse impact on our cash flows, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

The Company has complied with sanctions restrictions (including restrictions against non-government controlled regions of Ukraine (encompassing the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, the so-called Luhansk People's Republic, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and, in prior periods, Sudan) and intends to continue to so comply in all respects. The Company has not, nor does it intend to, provide any goods, fees or services to the referenced countries, and has had no contacts with governmental entities in these countries nor does it intend to have any in the future.

Its vessels are not chartered to any Crimean, Cuban, Iranian, North Korean, Sudanese, Syrian or Venezuelan companies. The voyage charter parties and all time-charter agreements relating to the vessels in the fleet generally preclude Iran, non-government controlled regions of Ukraine (including the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson), Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Venezuela from the vessels’ trading unless agreed between owner and charterer after considering all relevant sanctions legislation, including any applicable general licenses, and obtaining legal advice as to the potential sanctions implications of the proposed trade. In addition, all charter parties exclude trading with any entities or countries in breach of any applicable sanctions.

None of the vessels the Company owns, operates or charters have provided, or are anticipated to provide in contradiction to applicable sanctions, any U.S.-origin goods, or goods of any origin which would contravene sanctions restrictions, to these countries, or involve employees who are U.S. nationals in operations associated with these countries. No U.S. companies or U.S. dollar payments are involved in any operations associated with these countries. The Company has no relationships with governmental entities in those countries, nor does it charter its vessels to companies based in those countries. The Company derives its revenue directly from the charterers.

The Company is also aware of the less restrictive sanctions on trading with other countries, including but not limited to Libya, Afghanistan, China, Myanmar/ Burma, and the restrictions on trading with Russia, certain Russian entities and Russian origin goods. It has complied with those restrictions and intends to continue to comply in all respects.

Between January 1, 2024, and April 4, 2025, the Company’s vessels made 2,968 port calls around the world, none of which were found to have breached any sanctions regulations.

Notwithstanding the above, it is possible that new, or changes to existing, sanctions-related legislation or agreements may impact our business. In addition, it is possible that the charterers of our vessels may violate applicable sanctions, laws and regulations, using our vessels or otherwise, and the applicable authorities may seek to review our activities as the vessel owner. Moreover, although we believe that we are in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, the scope of certain laws may be unclear, may be subject to changing interpretations or may be strengthened or otherwise amended. Any violation of sanctions or engagement in sanctionable conduct could result in fines, sanctions or other penalties, and could negatively affect our reputation and result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in our common units. As noted above, any such violation or conduct would trigger a mandatory payment event under our financing arrangements. Finally, future expansion of sanctions or the imposition of sanctions on other jurisdictions could prevent our vessels from making any calls at certain ports, which could have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and where no owner controlled more than 5% of the world tanker fleet as of April 4, 2025. Ownership of tankers is divided among independent tanker owners and national and independent oil companies. Many oil companies and other oil trading companies, the principal charterers of our fleet, also operate their own vessels and transport oil for themselves and third-party charterers in direct competition with independent owners and operators. We compete for charters based on price, vessel location, size, age, condition, and acceptability of the vessel, as well as our reputation as a tanker operator and our managers reputation for meeting the standards required by charterers and port authorities. Currently we compete primarily with owners of tankers in the ULCCs, VLCCs, suezmax, suezmax DP2 shuttle tankers, aframax, panamax, and handysize class sizes, and we also compete with owners of LNG carriers.

Although we do not actively trade to a significant extent in Middle East trade routes, disruptions in those routes as a result of international hostilities, including those in Syria, Iraq and between Russia and Ukraine, economic sanctions, including those with respect to Iran, Russia and Ukraine, and terrorist attacks such as those made in various international locations (Somalia, Kenya, Yemen, Nigeria) and pirate attacks repeatedly made upon shipping in the Indian Ocean, off West Africa and in South East Asia, may affect our business. We may face increased competition if tanker companies that trade in Middle East trade routes seek to employ their vessels in other trade routes in which we actively trade. Other significant operators of multiple aframax and suezmax tankers in the Atlantic basin that compete with us include public companies such as CMB.Tech (formerly Euronav), Teekay Tankers, Frontline, International Seaways, Inc., Double Hull Tankers and Nordic American Tankers. There are also numerous smaller tanker operators in the Atlantic basin.

Employees

We have no salaried employees. See “—Management Contract—Crewing and Employees.”

Properties

We operate out of Tsakos Energy Management offices in the building also occupied by Tsakos Shipping at Megaron Makedonia, 367 Syngrou Avenue, Athens, Greece.

Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

Company Overview

As of April 4, 2025, the fleet consisted of 61 double-hull vessels with an average age of 10.4 years, comprised of 55 conventional tankers, two LNG carriers and four DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers providing world-wide marine transportation services for national, major and other independent oil companies and refiners under long, medium and short-term charters. We also have twelve DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers, two MR tankers, two suezmax tankers and five LR1 tankers under construction with expected deliveries in 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028. The current operational fleet consists of three VLCCs, sixteen suezmaxes (including four DP2 suezmax shuttle tankers), twenty-six aframaxes, two aframax LR2s, nine panamax LR1s, four handysize tankers and two LNG carriers. All vessels are owned by our subsidiaries, other than two suezmax tankers, one aframax tanker and one LNG carrier, which are bareboat chartered-in by our subsidiaries. The charter rates that we obtain for these services are determined in a highly competitive global tanker charter market. The tankers operate in markets that have historically exhibited both cyclical and seasonal variations in demand and corresponding fluctuations in charter rates. Tanker markets are typically stronger in the winter months because of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere. In addition, unpredictable weather conditions in the winter months in various regions around the world tend to disrupt vessel scheduling. The oil price volatility resulting from these factors has historically led to increased oil trading activities. Changes in the availability of vessel supply are also a contributing factor in affecting the cyclicality and overall volatility present in the tanker sector which is reflected both in charter rates and asset values.

Results from Operations—2024

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes to those statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, such as those set forth under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements.

In 2024, the Company continued to be positively impacted by the shifts in trade flows created by the armed conflict in Ukraine and the severe sanctions imposed by the Western world on Russian seaborne petroleum cargoes.

The sanctions put in place by the West, and others, to penalize the activities of the Russian government, unintentionally gave all tanker operators a positive thrust and created structural changes that could be long-standing, as Europe, the major client of Russian oil over the years, replaced “nearby” Russian oil with barrels from the USA, Guyana, West Africa, and the Middle East, creating therefore a positive ton-mile effect on global tanker demand and ultimately charter rates.

In addition, the instability in the Middle East which impacted shipping markets since October 2023, culminating in attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels remained prevalent during 2024, even though somewhat subsided after the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in January 2025, still remain in a fragile state. Many ship owners and charterers are still avoiding the region and seek alternate routes -through the Cape of Good Hope- that inevitably increase ton-mileage. While it is impossible to predict how geopolitical events, particularly those involving Russia and China, will unfold especially with a new Administration in the US, and on whether the current ceasefire in the Middle East will hold, we expect that the rerouting of cargos will remain, in some capacity, for the foreseeable future, and continue to support the supply side of the tanker sector, at least in the near term.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global oil demand reached a record 102.2mbpd in 2023 and is expected to have increased by 1.0mb/d to a new record of 103.2mb/d, in 2024. The estimates for 2025 remain in line for another record year, to 104.2mb/d, another 1.0mb/d increase. With the post-Covid rebound now complete, global oil demand continues to expand despite the ongoing energy transition debate for renewables and alternative fuels. The world appears to realize that, for the time being, it will need to be reliant on oil and LNG for longer periods from what originally anticipated, possibly at least until 2050.

Non-OECD countries dominate the growth outlook, with forecast demand set to increase by 1.2mb/d in 2025 to 58.9mb/d. By contrast, consumption in the OECD is expected to increase by only 0.7mb/d to 32.5mb/d instead. China continues to play a significant part in global oil dynamics having captured 16.6% of world oil demand in 2024, a level expected for 2025 as well.

The outlook for the global economy is expected to remain stable, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revising its forecast for global GDP growth in 2025 from 3.2% to 3.3%, with similar growth of 3.3% in 2026.

Tanker fleet supply fundamentals continue to remain attractive. With just under 7 million deadweight tons scheduled to be delivered in 2025, the orderbook as at the end of January 2024 stood at 13.4% of the existing fleet, a still low number when compared to the last 20 years, however, imminent orderbook growth remains restricted due to little spare shipyard capacity before 2028. The combination of a still low tanker orderbook, an aging fleet, lack of shipyard capacity, as well as the ongoing discussions for alternative fuels which could alter the vessel designs of the future, should lead to manageable levels of tanker fleet growth over the next two to three years.

In summary, we expect that a combination of robust oil demand and positive fleet supply fundamentals should continue to support a healthy tanker market over the next two to three years both in terms of freight and asset prices. Continuous geopolitical instability in various regions of the world and the ongoing sanctions on Russian oil exports, which are expected to remain in place for some time, irrespective of any ceasefire with Ukraine, should maintain the existing bifurcation of the global fleet which has led to the creation of the “shadow” fleet and the rerouting of tankers for longer haul voyages. Both considered additive to the tanker market’s performance going forward.

Our fleet achieved voyage revenues of $804.1 million in 2024, a decrease of 9.6% from $889.6 million in 2023. The average size of our fleet increased to 61.8 in 2024 from 59.5 vessels in 2023, and fleet utilization decreased to 92.5% during 2024 compared to 96.3% 2023. In 2024, geopolitical events, such as the war in Ukraine, Gaza and the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea continued and led to changes in trade flows maintaining a situation where tankers performed long-haul voyages adding positive ton-mile effects for tanker demand and rates. Our average daily time charter rate per vessel, after deducting voyage expenses, decreased to $32,550 in 2024 from $36,822 in 2023, mainly due to softer market rates despite the increased number of operating vessels. Operating expenses increased by 1.6% to $198.0 million in 2024 from $194.9 million in 2023, mainly due to planned dry-docking of fifteen vessels in 2024, counterbalanced by a reduction on repairs and maintenance and spares expenses and the drop of lubricant prices.

Depreciation and amortization totaled $159.9 million in 2024 compared to $144.2 million in 2023 due to increased depreciation expenses from $122.8 million in 2023 to $138.4 million in 2024, mainly due to newly acquired vessels. General and administrative expenses, which include management fees and incentive awards, were $45.4 million in 2024 and $33.3 million in 2023, a 36.3% increase, mainly due to the amortization of stock compensation expense amounted to $8.1 million in 2024 compared to $nil million in 2023.

In 2024, the review of the carrying amounts in connection with the estimated recoverable amount and the probability of sale for certain of the Company’s vessels as of December 31, 2024, indicated no impairment. In 2023, the review of the carrying amounts in connection with the estimated recoverable amount and the probability of sale for certain of the Company’s vessels as of December 31, 2023, resulted in an impairment charge of $26.4 million.

There was operating income of $278.6 million in 2024 compared to operating income of $391.5 million in 2023. Interest and finance costs, net, increased by 11.2% in 2024 or $11.3 million, mainly due to the increased average debt in 2024.

Net income attributable to the Company in 2024 was $176.2 million compared to $300.2 million in 2023. The effect of preferred dividends in 2024, inclusive of deemed dividends and undistributed income allocated to non-vested restricted common stock, was $28.0 million compared to $33.4 million in 2023. Net income per share, basic and diluted, was $5.03 in 2024 based on 29,505,603 weighted average shares outstanding, compared to net income per share, basic and diluted, $9.04 in 2023, based on 29,505,603 weighted average shares outstanding basic and outstanding.

Some of the most significant developments for the Company during 2024 were:

The Company operated the following types of vessels during and at the end of 2024:

We believe that the key factors which determined our financial performance in 2024, within the given freight rate environment in which we operated, were:

We believe that the above factors will also influence our future financial performance and will play a significant role in the current world economic climate as we proceed into 2025. To these may be added:

Below please see data regarding our fleet for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, which we use in analyzing our performance.

Derivation of time charter equivalent per day (amounts in thousands of U.S. dollars except for days and per day amounts):