Investor Presentation

March 2016

1
Forward Looking Statements

Matters discussed in this presentation may constitute forward-looking statements under U.S. federal securities
laws, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements reflect the
Company’s current views with respect to future events and financial performance and may include statements
concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and
other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. All statements, other than statements of
historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that the Company expects, projects, believes or
anticipates will or may occur in the future, including, without limitation, the delivery of vessels, the outlook for
tanker shipping rates, general industry conditions future operating results of the Company’s vessels, capital
expenditures, expansion and growth opportunities, bank borrowings, financing activities and other such matters,
are forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations stated in this presentation
are based on reasonable assumptions, actual results may differ from those projected in the forward-looking
statements. Important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those
discussed in the forward-looking statements include the failure of counterparties to fully perform their obligations
to us, the strength of the world economies and currencies, general market conditions, including changes in tanker
vessel charter hire rates and vessel values, changes in demand for tankers, changes in our vessel operating
expenses, including dry-docking, crewing and insurance costs, or actions taken by regulatory authorities, ability of
customers of our pools to perform their obligations under charter contracts on a timely basis, potential liability
from future litigation, domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to
accidents and political events or acts by terrorists. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any
forward looking statement contained in this presentation, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise, except as required by law. In light of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward looking
events discussed in this presentation might not occur, and our actual results could differ materially from those
anticipated in these forward-looking statements.

2
 Section 1

Euronav at a Glance

2
3
 Euronav – Largest Tanker Company in the World

CURRENT FLEET – TOTAL 56 VESSELS – 13.5 MM DWT WHO WE ARE

1 V – PLUS (1) 2 FSO

29 VLCC
22 SUEZMAX
Over 441,000 DWT 380k barrels Leading pure-play tanker company
150,000 – 165,000 DWT
+ 2 (TBD) with best-in-class operating platform
Only 4 in world fleet Stripped water capacity
Up to 330,000 DWT

Strong balance sheet

Committed to shareholder
1MM barrels 2MM barrels 3 MM barrels 2.8 MM barrels long-term value creation…
Avg. age 10 years Avg. age 6 years Avg. age 12 years Avg. age 12 years
… with significant direct return to
shareholders
Notes:
1. Only 4 V-Plus vessels in world fleet
Most liquid big tanker player in the
world

WELL POSITIONED FOR STRONG CASH FLOW GENERATION

Breakeven (including debt service): Spot Income - High Leverage to Upside

1 ~ USD 27,300 / day for VLCC – OpEx / day USD 8,165 3 Each USD 5,000 uplift (above break-even) in both VLCC and
Suezmax rates improves net revenue and EBITDA
~ USD 24,000 / day for Suezmax – OpEx / day USD 7,520
by USD 72 million

Fixed Income
Returns to Shareholders
2 > USD 100 million of EBITDA (1) generated annually from 4 Return 80% of net income to shareholders (2)
fixed income contracts (FSO + TC contracts)

1. Proportionate consolidation method

2. P&L definition
4
 Euronav – Exposed to Structural Growth in Demand for Oil

INCREMENTAL VLCC DEMAND FOR 1.2 MBPD ADDITIONAL EXPORTS = 36 – 49 VLCC PER YEAR
1.2 mbpd x 365 days = 440m barrels
440m barrels / 2m capacity per VLCC = 220 cargoes
220 cargoes / 4.5 annual journeys for VLCC (1) = 49 VLCCs

Europe

Russia

Asia Pacific
Middle East
U.S.
22 – 24
VLCCs China
24 – 26
VLCCs
29 – 32
West Africa
WHAT WE DO VLCCs

Importer LatAm / Caribs

Demand

Supply 48 – 50
48 – 50 VLCCs
Exporter VLCCs

Supply 52 – 54
VLCCs
Demand

(1) Euronav average

Source Euronav, Morgan Stanley

5
 Euronav - Most Liquid Big Tanker Player

LIQUIDITY GIVES SHAREHOLDERS OPTIONALITY

More Trading Hours Euronext Brussels: 9 a.m. – 5. 30 p.m. (CET) Ticker Symbol: EURN
NYSE: 9.30 a.m. – 4 p.m. (EST)

TOTAL TRADED VALUE OF EURONAV US AND BB SHARES (SAME SHARE) - EURN US EQUITY & EURN BB EQUITY

100%

90% Average daily volume shares =

1.38 mm shares per day
80%

70%
Average daily volume USD =
60% USD 20 mm per day

50%

40%
Velocity = 334%*

30%

20%

Free float = 85%

10%

0% *Calculation method =
daily volume x trading days / free float

Source Bloomberg based on Exchange volumes

6
 Section 2

Industry Dynamics

5
7
 Oil Tankers – Five Key Drivers

Demand for Oil Supply of Oil Ton Miles Supply of Vessels Financing
ROBUST EXCESS BALANCED MANAGEABLE NEW BARRIER
TO ENTRY
• Trade lines established • Natural replacement • New regulations
• Oil demand growing • Market share strategy from production in West cycle of 5% p.a. (Basel 2&3) restricting
last 25 years • USA production shale: to consumption in East • Order book largely lending
• Yearly average 1.1 very resilient & • Ton miles a dynamic industrial not • Distress in shipping
mbpd responsive function in tankers speculative loans has reduced risk
• IEA forecast 1.2m bpd • Iran increase of 900k • Chinese imports • Order velocity appetite
EVERY year to 2020 bpd diversification substantially fallen since • Shipyards under
• 1.2 m bpd oil demand • USA crude exports to Q3 2015 pressure to reform
growth = for 36-49 increase ton miles
VLCCs

1 2 3 4 5

8
 Oil Price – Impact on Demand 1 Demand for Oil

OIL PRICE OUTLOOK (ILLUSTRATION)

110
Lack of disruption/market share game
Iran and other supply remain high Demand Destructive
100
Shale - as swing producer increases
output 2009 - 2014 proved in this oil
90
price range that demand was
destroyed
80

70
Neutral
60

50 Demand Stimulating
proven over time that the cheaper
40 the commodity price the greater it
is used
30

Demand Disruptive
20 Current structure of global markets
mean energy/capex/sovereign wealth
10 Capex cuts in E&P effects > consumer stimulus from
Potential coordinated cuts in production lower oil prices
QE returns/$ loss of value/oil as financial asset
0

9
 Demand – steady and robust outlook 1 Demand for Oil

GLOBAL OIL DEMAND 1990-2015 (MB/D) AND AVERAGE OIL PRICE

Average oil demand growth 1990-2015 =1.1 mbpd

 Grow almost always
3.5
95.5 80
3.1 3.1
2015 oil
3
demand growth
2.5 = 1.8 mbpd
2
Million barrels per day

1.9 95 70
2 1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5 1.5
1.4
1.5 1.3
1.1
1 1 1

Oil price (USD per barrel)

Consumption (mbpd)
1 0.8 0.8
0.70.7 0.7
0.5 94.5 60
0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

-0.5 94 50

-1 Source IEA -0.7

-0.9

93.5 40

IEA forecast 1.2 mbpd

consumption growth 93 30

EVERY year to 2020

 in line with historical 92.5 20

average
Actual demand (million barrels) Average oil price

Source IEA

10
 China, Oil Demand & Oil Tankers 1 Demand for Oil

CHINA OIL DEMAND – VERY STEADY (UNLIKE GDP GROWTH) CHINA CRUDE OIL IMPORT DIVERSIFICATION CONTINUES

35 14 Source Bloomberg

GDP growth (%)

Imports (mbpd)

Other 20% Russia 14%

30 13

12
25

11 Libya 1% Saudi Arabia

20 14%
Kzakhstan
10
1% Brazil 3%
15
9
Kuwait 4%
10
8
Venezuela Oman 11%
5 7
6%

Iran 6%
0 6
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Iraq 9% Angola 10%
Oil imports (million barrels per day) Real GDP growth (%)

CHINA OIL DEMAND – TO BE DRIVEN BY THE CONSUMER NOT INDUSTRY STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE – SPR A KEY DRIVER

In China, transportation (road and air) makes up about 42% of demand for oil
 Additional 110 mm bbls in 2016 (source: BP)
600
Other
14.2% Transport 500
(road and
million barrels

air - 400
consumer-
led) 300
42.1%
200
Industrial
usage 100
28.8%
0

Commercial
heating (mix
industry and
Source Bloomberg consumer) Source Argus, FGE, Reuters, Barclays Research
14.9% 11
China & Oil Tankers – Four Reasons for Confidence 1 Demand for Oil

• BASE EFFECT – China consumes 11.8m (source: IEA)

bpd so small % change means large no of barrels OPERATIONAL ECONOMY
• 500m people joined middle-class in past decade
1 (source: McQuilling)
• Oil demand underpinned by consumer – diesel, gasoline
3% import growth = 210k bpd
5% import growth = 350k bpd

& kerosene demand

• SPR is not a luxury OR a STATIC number STRATEGIC

• China needs 55 days coverage of consumption – so PETROLEUM RESERVE

1
2 12m bpd x 55d = 660m bbls today

TOTAL 500 – 800k bpd

Build out to slow 2016
• Target is comply by 2020 = 600m bbls 2015 SPR is C 50-110m bbls to be added
currently 350m bbls = 140k bpd to 300k bpd

• Reforms have granted licences up to 1 mbpd (source: TEAPOT REFINERY

Bernstein)

3
1 • “Use it or lose it” element to the licences
• Substitution demand – new for tankers
Refinery legislation
anniversary June ’16

2016 = 50k bpd growth

• March 2016 – merger of teapots for procurement

• China continue to look to diversify sourcing of oil

DIVERSIFICATION OF
imports and decrease of domestic oil production
SUPPLY & LIKELY
• Domestic production growth stagnant since 2012 PRODUCTION PEAK
4
1 (Source: Bernstein)
• Consensus is for 100k bpd requirement of imports Consensus = 100k bpd
replacing domestic production

Source IEA, McQuilling, Bernstein 12

 Oil Supply = High but Production Cuts Unlikely 2 Supply of Oil

WHO IS GOING TO MATERIALLY CUT? NEED CO-ORDINATION

OIL SUPPLY – SHALE PROVING TO BE VERY RESILIENT BETWEEN THE TOP 10 PRODUCERS = 60% WORLD SUPPLY

1800 4000 FSU ex Kuwait 2.8

million barrels per day
3500
Russia 2.9

Thousands of barrels per day

1600
Iran 2.9
1400
3000 USA 12.8*
Number of oil rigs

2500
UAE 2.9
1200
* includes bio fuel
2000
1000 Iraq 4.3
1500
800
1000

600 500 China 4.4 Russia 11.1

400 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Baker Hughes crude oil rig count Canada 4.5

North Dakota crude oil production Saudi Arabia
Texas crude oil production 10.2
Source IEA November 2015

SHALE OIL SPEED TO PRODUCTION IS KEY OPEC QUOTAS? … OPEC HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH QUOTAS

Average field development (approval to start up) time by resource

[years, selected areas]
5.7
5.0
4.4 4.6

3.3 3.5
3.0 3.1
2.5

0.6

Source SBC Analysis, Rystad

13
 Ton Miles – a Key Driver 3 Ton Miles

INCREMENTAL VLCC DEMAND FOR EACH 1.2 MBPD ADDITIONAL EXPORTS

1.2m bpd x 365 days = 440m barrels
440m barrels / 2m capacity per VLCC = 220 cargoes
220 cargoes / 4.5 annual journeys for VLCC (1) = 49 VLCCs

Europe

Russia

Asia Pacific

U.S.
22 – 24
VLCCs China
24 – 26
VLCCs
29 – 32
VLCCs

One way voyage durations LatAm / Caribs

Arabian Gulf to China 21 days

5,500 miles 48 – 50
48 – 50 VLCCs
West Africa to USA 19 days VLCCs
5,000 miles
52 – 54
West Africa to China 33 days VLCCs
9,650 miles

LatAm to China 44 days

11,500 miles Exporter Importer
Supply Demand
Source Morgan Stanley
Note: Demand Supply
1. Atlantic – Far East trade route
 Order Book Dynamics – Structure - VLCC 4 Supply of Vessels

VLCC – ADDITIONS, SCRAPPING, REMOVALS  IMPLIED BUFFER

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Q1=9 Q1=12
Q2=9 Q2=4
Q3=8 Q3=4 Q1=10
60 Q4=19 Q4=25 Q2=5
Q3=5
Q4=10
45 45

40
30
62
54
49
20
30
24 23

0 -1
-5 -8 -7
-13 -11

-25 -22
-8
-20 -10
-16
-48

Could be scrapped (≥20 years old) depending on market levels

-40
Must be scrapped (over 22,5 years old)
Scrapped
Forecast Additions
-60
Additions
BASE CASE Net:6 Net:37 Net:36 Net:8 Net:13 Net:22 Net:40 Net:37 Net:23
Source Clarkson

15
 Order Book Dynamics – Structure - Suezmax 4 Supply of Vessels

SUEZMAX – ADDITIONS, SCRAPPING, REMOVALS  IMPLIED BUFFER

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

55
Q1=16
Q2=10 45

45 Q3=4
Q4=15

Q1=1 Q1=3
35 Q2=4 Q2=4
27 Q1=3
Q3=2
Q3=10 Q2=4
Q4=1
Q4=12 Q3=2
25
45
Q4=1
43
38
15 10
27

5 8 10

-3
-7 -7 -6 -7
-5 -9

-19 -20
-15 -5
-8
-17
-25 Could be scrapped (≥20 years old) depending on market levels

-35 Must be scrapped (over 22.5 years old)

Scrapped
Forecast Additions
-45 Additions

BASE CASE Net:19 Net:36 Net:25 Net:20 Net:-1 Net:10 Net:24 Net:39 Net:3
Source Clarkson
16
 Order Book – Logical Fleet Renewal – VLCC 4 Supply of Vessels

ORDERS FROM INDUSTRIAL SHIPPING ARE DIFFERENT THAN ORDERS FROM SPECULATIVE SHIPPING

National Oil Companies Traditional Ship Owners Chinese Ship Owners

2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of vessels delivered

20

15

10 19
16
14 14
12
5 9
5 4
0 1 1 2 2
3 4
3 1
7
-5 10
6 14 13 14 1
-10 3
21
17
8
-15 2 3
8
-20
3
-25 8 7
6
-30 23

-35

-40

-45 Source Clarkson

≥15 years old ≥17.5 years old ≥20 years old
SPECULATIVE SHIPPING*

25 23
Number of vessels

20
• Industrial players don’t order to speculate on
asset value
delivered

15

10
6 • Industrial players run their ships on committed
5
programs less in the spot market
0
2016 2017 2018 2019

Source Clarkson
*including independent owners backed by private equity
17
 Financing
Increasing Barriers to Entry 5

HUGE
REDUCTION REGULATIONS PRIVATE SHIP OWNERS SHIPYARD
IN SHIPPING FORCE EQUITY IN UNDER PRESSURE TO
BANK LEVERAGE RETREAT PRESSURE RESTRUCTURE
EXPOSURE DOWN & REDUCE
Around USD 70bn CAPACITY
• Other shipping
withdrawn from shipping • Banks lending • PE exiting shipping segments: Dry Bulk, • Low order books in all
sector since 2008 flexibility severely shipping segments
• PE been surprised by Offshore, Container
curtailed due to Basel the lack of liquidity under severe financial leading to ship yard
Bank (USD bn) 2008 2014
II & III implying a return to the pressure distress
HSH Nordbank 58 25.5 • Shipping & Energy sector as difficult to • Most tanker owners • Reforms being
Deutsche loans in distress realize have mixed fleets so actively adopted by
Schiffsbank/ 44.8 14.7
Commerzbank • Quantum of available pressure felt within shipyards driven by
RBS 30 12
lending capital ownership structure governments
restricted for
Lloyds/HBOS 12.2 0
commercial reasons
HVB/UniCredit 11.2 5.7

Source Marine Money + Deutsche Bank

18
 BULL CASE BEAR CASE

• Tankers a highly cyclical sector –

• Agencies forecast steady growth to always repeats past mistakes
2020 CYCLICAL • Large vessel supply to drive freight
• Incremental expansion from Asia rates lower
DEMAND Pacific region

• China oil demand by very diverse • Asset values falling despite positive
range of factors tanker earnings trend
• Base effect of economy consuming
CHINA – GROWTH 12m bpd key
ASSET VALUES • Lower NAV reduces valuation
support

• Financing being restricted – new • Global GDP growth stagnant

$ barrier to entry
• Restricted access reducing vessel
supply growth
SLOWDOWN
• Tanker market - a transportation
sector geared into GDP growth

• Storage increasing across due to • Inventory at record highs – will

oversupply or strategic build e.g.
India
• Ultimately stored crude needs to be
STORAGE
shipped to final destination
need to be cleared at some point
thus reducing need for shipping
• Storage / contango on ships in
present cycle been limited
INVENTORY

• Supply of oil to remain elevated into

• Worldwide shale development –
2017 with Iran and no co-ordinated
unlikely outside of USA
production cuts
• OPEC output cut / Middle East
• Increased supply = increased demand
SUPPLY OIL OTHER reduce exports
for shipping

19
 Section 3

Our Strategy

16
20
 Maximizing Value Through Information

BARRIER TO ENTRY – INFORMATION SIZE IS CRITICAL TO IMPROVE MARKET KNOWLEDGE

Differentiate spot players vs industrial players

56
1 Ship Owner, 37 Vessels

2 Ship Owner, 52
NIOC, 37

China Merchants Grp, 35

COSCO Group, 32 3 Ship Owner, 24 40 16

MOL, 32

Top 10 Owners • Tankers International = Only owner-led VLCC pool

Bahri, 31
Control 44% • No value leakage; no commissions  Cost center
of Global • Leading spot market oriented VLCC pool in which ship owners
Angelicoussis with vessels of similar sizes and quality participate
Group, 29 VLCC Fleet 4 – 10 Ship
Owner, 154 • Spreading information (VL Database, TI Pool App)
Euronav
NV, 28

Fredriksen Other VLCC Tanker Pools (Ships on the Water)

Group, 25

NYK, 21
SK Holdings, 18 Heidmar Navig8 China VLCC
10 – 15 Ship Owner, 103 – VLCC Seawolf – VL8

Small owners are data deficient (267 VLCCs) 7 25 32

Red indicates Captive or Sovereign fleet
Blue indicates fleet in stock listed companies

Source: Clarkson’s – Total 658 VLCC ships @ February 2016 Source: Company reports

VLCC Chartering Undertaking Leadership Role

21
 Capital allocation strategy

CAPITAL ALLOCATION

Strong balance sheet Leverage

1 • Maintain strong balance sheet • Target 30% to 50% leverage

through cycle according to where we are in the
cycle

Capex Liquidity reserve

2 • Approximately USD 20 million • Retain min TWO years of

maintenance capex (Drydocks) operational liquidity at all times
• $130m outstanding capex on 2 VLCC • Maintain strong banking
to be delivered in 1H16 – fully funded relationships

M&A criteria –
M&A – operational Shareholder Returns
balance sheet

• Will never issue • Additional vessels • Distribute regularly excess cash to

3 non-accretive must on pro-forma shareholders
new equity basis either match
or reduce break
even costs

22
 Euronav Positioned for Powerful Cash Generation

WELL POSITIONED FOR STRONG CASH FLOW PRO FORMA FLEET EARNINGS CAPABILITY
GENERATION (EBITDA, $MM) (1)

Next 12 Months Spot Days Exposure = 14,341 Days

($MM)

1,500 1,092
1
Breakeven (including debt service):
650
~ USD 27,300 / day for VLCC – OpEx / day USD 8,165 1,000 493
~ USD 24,000 / day for Suezmax – OpEx / day USD 7,520 339

500
264

2 0
+$5,000 +$15,000 +$25,000 +$55,000
per day per day per day per day
Fixed Income
> USD 100 million of EBITDA (2) generated annually VLCC
from fixed income contracts (FSO + TC contracts) TCE RATES
$25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $80,000

SUEZMAX
$20,000 $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $75,000
TCE RATES

3
Returns to Shareholders
Return 80% of net income to shareholders (3)
Each USD 5,000 uplift (above breakeven) in
both VLCC and Suezmax rates improves net
revenue and EBITDA by
Notes:
1. Based on full year contribution of 57 ships on proportionate basis’
USD 72MM
2. Proportionate consolidation method
3. P&L definition

23
 Section 5

Supplemental Materials

22
24
Appendix - Ton mile dynamic – still more to deliver 3 Ton Miles

• TRADE ROUTES NOW SET FROM ATLANTIC BASIN TO FAR EAST

• REPEAL USA EXPORT BAN OPENS NEW MARKET TO TANKER SHIPPING
• IRAN – POTENTIAL SHORT TERM BENEFIT FOR COMMERCIAL FLEET AS IRAN RE-ENTERS GLOBAL MARKETS

Source Morgan Stanley

Europe

Asia

U.S.

Middle East

Iran impact neutral

West Africa
USA: infrastructure spend
required to fully facilitate US
exports ($1-4bn)

China domestic production

likely peaked 2015 – more LatAm
imports required

Key routes established

WAF to Europe likely

displaced by USA exports

Existing heavy Saudi/Iraqi to

complex US refinery 25
 Appendix – Supply Manageable 4 Supply of Vessels

MOST TANKER OWNERS HEAVILY EXPOSED TO OTHER SHIPPING ORDER BOOK AS % OF FLEET – MANAGEABLE
Orderbook as a % of Fleet
Source Clarksons
1000 (%)
60
900

800 50

700
0-5 VLCCs owned (120) 40
600
5-9 VLCCs owned (11)
500 30
10-14 VLCCs owned (9)
400
15-19 VLCCs owned (3) 20
300 20++ VLCCs owned (9)
10
200

100 0
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Suezmax Aframax Product Dyr Bulk Container VLCC Suezmax
Source Clarksons

IRANIAN FLEET RE-ADMITTANCE TO GLOBAL FLEET – NEUTRAL IMPACT AGE PROFILE OF VLCC FLEET – SCRAPPING TO RISE 2018+

17 VLCCs
trading during sanction (# of Vessels)
to China, Turkey, India, Taiwan 70 63
Syria, S Korea and Japan
4x2013, 4x2012, 6x2008, 1x2007, Iranian 60 56
52
2x2004
VLCC fleet
49
50

total 40
39 37 36 39
40
7 VLCCs 30 29 31 29
30 27 25
been on storage 24
20
Only net 15
3x2013, 1x2012, 2x2009, 1x2008 18 16
20 13
10 8
8 VLCCs VLCCs to re- 10

been on storage
near 3rd special survey
enter global 0
0-5 Years 5-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years +
5x2003, 3x2002 commercial = 186 = 194 = 160 = 111
8 VLCCs fleet
Source Clarksons
full time storage
1993-1999 vintage

Source Citi
26
 Appendix – Cost of Dry-Dock by Age Profile 4 Supply of Vessels

TANKER SHIPPING – A HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRY

Costs of surveys increase during tanker life leading to scrapping decision

million USD

Special Survey #1 Special Survey #2 Special Survey #3 IS Dry #4 SS #5 Average cumulative

cost $1.5m $2m $2.5m $3.25m $4m survey cost
(17.5  21 years)
= USD 7.25 mm

Median scrap age

=20 years

5 year 10 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

Years
Reduction in available markets for vessels and reduced utilization
27
 Appendix - Order Book – Logical Fleet Renewal 4 Supply of Vessels

Suezmax
ORDERS FROM INDUSTRIAL SHIPPING ARE DIFFERENT THAN ORDERS FROM SPECULATIVE SHIPPING

National Oil Companies Traditional Ship Owners Chinese Ship Owners

2017 2018 2019

2016
Number of vessels delivered

35
30
25
20
15 31

10
5 12

2 3 3 3 4 2
0 2 1 1 1
3 5 2 1 3 1
3 6
-5 9
5 17
-10
12
9 9
-15
-20 8
-25
-30 23 23
16
-35
-40
-45
Source: Clarckson ≥20 years old ≥17.5 years old ≥15 years old

SPECULATIVE SHIPPING*

14 13 13

12
Number of vessels

10
delivered

0
2016 2017 2018 2019

*including independent owners backed by private equity Source: Clarckson 28