UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

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

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009

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

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

Date of event requiring this shell company report                                         

For the transition period from                      to                     

TEEKAY TANKERS LTD.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Republic of The Marshall Islands
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Not Applicable
(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

4^th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda
(Address of principal executive offices)

Roy Spires
4^th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda
Telephone: (441) 298-2530
Fax: (441) 292-3931
(Contact information for company contact person)

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

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

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

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

19,500,000 shares of Class A common stock, par value of $0.01 per share.
12,500,000 shares of Class B common stock, par value of $0.01 per share.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o No þ

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yes o No þ

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 þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes o No o

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

Large Accelerated Filer o		Accelerated Filer þ		Non-Accelerated Filer o

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

U.S. GAAP þ		International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board o		Other o

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 o Item 18 o

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes o No þ

 

 

TEEKAY TANKERS LTD.
INDEX TO REPORT ON FORM 20-F

				Page
PART I.
Item 1.		Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors			4
Item 2.		Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable			4
Item 3.		Key Information			4
Item 4.		Information on the Company			18
Item 4A.		Unresolved Staff Comments			28
Item 5.		Operating and Financial Review and Prospects			28
Item 6.		Directors, Senior Management and Employees			40
Item 7.		Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions			44
Item 8.		Financial Information			48
Item 9.		The Offer and Listing			49
Item 10.		Additional Information			50
Item 11.		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			54
Item 12.		Description of Securities Other than Equity Securities			55
PART II.
Item 13.		Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies			55
Item 14.		Material Modifications to the Rights of Security Holders and Use of Proceeds			55
Item 15.		Controls and Procedures			55
Item 16A.		Audit Committee Financial Expert			56
Item 16B.		Code of Ethics			56
Item 16C.		Principal Accountant Fees and Services			56
Item 16D.		Exemptions from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees			56
Item 16E.		Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers			56
Item 16F.		Change in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant			57
Item 16G.		Corporate Governance			57
PART III.
Item 17.		Financial Statements			57
Item 18.		Financial Statements			57
Item 19.		Exhibits			57
Signatures					58
Exhibit 8.1
Exhibit 12.1
Exhibit 12.2
Exhibit 13.1
Exhibit 13.2

PART I

This Annual Report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in this report.

Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Annual Report to “Teekay Tankers Ltd.,” “we,” “us” and “our” and similar terms refer to Teekay Tankers Ltd. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries, except that those terms, when used in this Annual Report in connection with the common stock described herein, shall mean specifically Teekay Tankers Ltd. References in this Annual Report to “Teekay Corporation” refer to Teekay Corporation and/or any one or more of its subsidiaries.

In addition to historical information, this Annual Report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements relate to future events and our operations, objectives, expectations, performance, financial condition and intentions. When used in this Annual Report, the words “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, in particular, statements regarding:

	•		our ability to pay dividends on our common stock;
	•		our future financial condition or results of operations and our future revenues and expenses;
	•		general market conditions and shipping market trends, including charter rates and factors affecting supply and demand;
	•		expected compliance with financing agreements and the expected effect of restrictive covenants in such agreements;
	•		future oil prices, production and refinery capacity;
	•		expansion of our business and additions to our fleet;
	•		our expectations about the availability of vessels to purchase, the time it may take to construct and deliver newbuildings, or the useful lives of our vessels;
	•		planned capital expenditures and the ability to fund capital expenditures;
	•		the need to establish reserves that would reduce dividends on our common stock;
	•		the recent economic downturn and crisis in the global financial markets, including disruptions in the global credit and stock markets and potential negative effects on our customers’ ability to charter our vessels and pay for our services;
	•		future supply of, and demand for, oil;
	•		the ability to leverage Teekay Corporation’s relationships and reputation in the shipping industry;
	•		the expected benefits of participation in vessel pooling arrangements;
	•		the ability to maximize the use of vessels, including the redeployment or disposition of vessels no longer under time charters;
	•		operating expenses, availability of crew, number of off-hire days, drydocking requirements and insurance costs;
	•		the expected cost of, and our ability to comply with, governmental regulations and maritime self regulatory organization standards applicable to our business;
	•		the anticipated impact of future regulatory changes or environmental liabilities;
	•		incremental general and administrative expenses as a public company and expenses under service agreements with other affiliates of Teekay Corporation;
	•		the anticipated taxation of our company and of distributions to our stockholders;
	•		the future valuation of goodwill;
	•		the expected lifespan of our vessels;
	•		potential newbuilding order cancellations;
	•		construction and delivery delays in the tanker industry generally;

	•		customers’ increasing emphasis on environmental and safety concerns;
	•		anticipated funds for liquidity needs and the sufficiency of cash flows;
	•		our use of interest rate swaps to reduce interest rate exposure;
	•		the expected effect of off-balance sheet arrangements;
	•		our compliance with covenants under our credit facilities;
	•		the effectiveness of our chartering strategy in capturing upside opportunities and reducing downside risk;
	•		our hedging activities relating to foreign exchange, interest rate and spot market risks;
	•		the ability of counterparties to our derivative contracts to fulfill their contractual obligations; and
	•		our business strategy and other plans and objectives for future operations.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, those factors discussed below in Item 3: “Key Information—Risk Factors,” and other factors detailed from time to time in other reports we file with or furnish to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (or the SEC).

We do not intend to revise any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any change in our expectations or events or circumstances that may subsequently arise. You should carefully review and consider the various disclosures included in this Annual Report and in our other filings made with the SEC that attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our business, prospects and results of operations.

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors

Not applicable.

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

Selected Financial Data

The following table presents, for the periods and as of the dates indicated, summary:

	•		historical financial and operating data of Teekay Tankers Predecessor (defined below); and
	•		financial and operating data of Teekay Tankers Ltd. since our initial public offering on December 18, 2007.

The summary historical financial and operating data has been prepared on the following basis:

	•		the historical financial and operating data of Teekay Tankers Predecessor as at and for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2006 are derived from the audited combined, carve-out financial statements of Teekay Tankers Predecessor;
	•		the historical financial and operating data of Teekay Tankers Predecessor for the period from January 1, 2007 to December 17, 2007 are derived from the audited combined, carve-out financial statements of Teekay Tankers Predecessor; and
	•		the historical financial and operating data of Teekay Tankers Ltd. as at December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, for the period from December 18, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, reflect our initial public offering and are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements.

In connection with our initial public offering, Teekay Corporation contributed to us nine wholly owned subsidiaries, each of which owns one Aframax-class oil tanker. These transfers represented a reorganization of entities under common control and have been recorded at historical cost. Prior to these transfers to us, Teekay Corporation transferred seven of the nine tankers to seven new ship-owning subsidiaries. The accounts of the remaining two wholly owned subsidiaries and any other transactions specifically attributable to the nine vessels that, prior to the public offering, were incurred in Teekay Corporation or any of its other subsidiaries that were not transferred to us are collectively referred to as Teekay Tankers Predecessor or the Predecessor.

The initial public offering and certain other transactions that occurred during 2007, 2008 and 2009 have affected our historical performance or will affect our future performance. As a result, the following table should be read together with, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to, (a) Item 5: “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” included herein, and (b) the historical financial statements and the accompanying notes and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm therein (which are included herein), with respect to the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007.

Please refer to Item 5: “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Significant Developments in 2009,” for a discussion on the additional Suezmax tanker we acquired from Teekay Corporation in 2009 and two additional Suezmax tankers we acquired from Teekay Corporation in 2008. The information presented in the following table and related footnotes has been adjusted to reflect the inclusion of the financial results of the Suezmax tankers acquired in 2009 and 2008 for the periods under common control of Teekay Corporation and are collectively referred to as the Dropdown Predecessor. Please read Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (or GAAP).

		Years Ended December 31,
		2005				2006				2007				2008				2009
		(in thousands, except share, per share, and fleet data)
Income Statement Data:
Voyage revenues		$	125,372			$	153,093			$	160,706			$	163,327			$	113,303
Operating expenses:
Voyage expenses(1)			31,799				46,408				47,447				2,359				3,106
Vessel operating expenses(2)			18,722				21,777				24,287				33,896				33,221
Depreciation and amortization			13,137				15,614				21,055				27,655				28,660
General and administrative expenses			8,975				12,142				14,537				8,734				6,694
Total operating expenses			72,633				95,941				107,326				72,644				71,681
Income from vessel operations			52,739				57,152				53,380				90,683				41,622
Interest expense			(6,919	)			(15,737	)			(13,467	)			(16,908	)			(7,012	)
Interest income			—				—				—				475				70
Realized and unrealized (loss) gain on interest rate swap			—				—				—				(16,232	)			4,310
Other — net			(1,929	)			(1,262	)			(8	)			49				(56	)
Net income			43,891				40,153				39,905				58,067				38,934
Earnings per common share — basic and diluted(3)		$	2.93			$	2.68			$	2.76			$	2.03			$	1.28
Balance Sheet Data (at end of year):
Cash		$	—			$	—			$	34,839			$	26,698			$	10,432
Vessels and equipment(4)			296,899				282,451				536,425				522,796				506,309
Total assets			317,414				298,625				748,599				599,535				539,963
Total debt(5)			286,922				81,196				425,215				421,139				305,228
Common stock and paid in capital			—				—				180,915				181,245				246,753
Total stockholders’ equity/owner’s equity			42,446				209,575				307,481				137,653				206,271
Cash Flow Data:
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities		$	41,828			$	62,170			$	36,385			$	97,726			$	74,097
Financing activities			39,500				(61,148	)			(668	)			(101,058	)			(86,532	)
Investing activities			(81,328	)			(1,022	)			(878	)			(4,809	)			(3,831	)
Number of outstanding shares of common stock at the end of the period(3)			15,000,000				15,000,000				25,000,000				25,000,000				32,000,000
Other Financial Data:
Net voyage revenues(6)		$	93,573			$	106,685			$	113,259			$	160,968			$	110,197
EBITDA(7)			65,881				72,755				74,427				118,862				70,296
Capital expenditures:
Expenditures for vessels and equipment			81,328				1,022				878				4,809				3,831
Expenditures for drydocking			3,819				144				1,465				9,216				8,204
Fleet Data:
Average number of tankers(8): Aframax			7.9				9.0				9.0				9.0				9.0
Suezmax			—				—				0.8				2.0				3.0

		Years Ended December 31,
		2005				2006				2007				2008				2009
Voyage revenues		$	125,372			$	153,093			$	160,706			$	163,327			$	113,303
Voyage expenses			(31,799	)			(46,408	)			(47,447	)			(2,359	)			(3,106	)
Net voyage revenues		$	93,573			$	106,685			$	113,259			$	160,968			$	110,197

	•		Financial and operating performance. EBITDA assists our management and investors by increasing the comparability of our fundamental performance from period to period and against the fundamental performance of other companies in our industry that provide EBITDA information. This increased comparability is achieved by excluding the potentially disparate effects between periods or companies of interest expense, taxes, depreciation or amortization, which items are affected by various and possibly changing financing methods, capital structure and historical cost basis and which items may significantly affect net income between periods. We believe that including EBITDA as a financial and operating measure benefits investors in (a) selecting between investing in us and other investment alternatives and (b) monitoring our ongoing financial and operational strength and health in assessing whether to continue to hold shares of our Class A common stock.
	•		Liquidity. EBITDA allows us to assess the ability of assets to generate cash sufficient to service debt, pay dividends and undertake capital expenditures. By eliminating the cash flow effect resulting from our existing capitalization and other items such as drydocking expenditures, working capital changes and foreign currency exchange gains and losses, EBITDA provides a consistent measure of our ability to generate cash over the long term. Management uses this information as a significant factor in determining (a) our proper capitalization (including assessing how much debt to incur and whether changes to the capitalization should be made) and (b) whether to undertake material capital expenditures and how to finance them, all in light of our dividend policy. Use of EBITDA as a liquidity measure also permits investors to assess the fundamental ability of our business to generate cash sufficient to meet cash needs, including dividends on shares of our Class A common stock.

		Years Ended December 31,
		2005				2006				2007				2008				2009
Reconciliation of “EBITDA” to “Net income”:
Net income		$	43,891			$	40,153			$	39,905			$	58,067			$	38,934
Depreciation and amortization			13,137				15,614				21,055				27,655				28,660
Interest expense, net of interest income			6,919				15,737				13,467				16,433				6,942
Income taxes			1,934				1,251				—				—				—
EBITDA		$	65,881			$	72,755			$	74,427			$	102,155			$	74,536
Realized and unrealized loss (gain) on interest rate swap			—				—				—				16,232				(4,310	)
Adjusted EBITDA		$	65,881			$	72,755			$	74,427			$	118,387			$	70,226
Reconciliation of “Adjusted EBITDA” to “Net operating cash flow”:
Net operating cash flow		$	41,828			$	62,170			$	36,385			$	97,726			$	74,097
Expenditures for drydocking			3,819				144				1,465				9,216				8,204
Interest expense, net of interest income			6,919				15,737				13,467				16,433				6,942
Realized and unrealized loss (gain) on interest rate swap			—				—				—				16,232				(4,310	)
Increase in fair value of interest rate swap			—				—				—				(14,199	)			9,033
Income taxes			1,934				1,251				—				—				—
Change in working capital			11,485				(6,313	)			23,225				(7,493	)			(23,471	)
Other, net			(104	)			(234	)			(115	)			472				(269	)
Adjusted EBITDA		$	65,881			$	72,755			$	74,427			$	118,387			$	70,226

Risk Factors

We may be unable to pay dividends.

Our board of directors has adopted a dividend policy to pay a variable quarterly dividend equal to our Cash Available for Distribution from the previous quarter, subject to any reserves the board of directors may from time to time determine are required for prudent conduct of its business. Cash Available for Distribution represents our net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, unrealized losses from derivatives, non-cash items and any write-offs or other non-recurring items less net income attributable to the Dropdown Predecessor, and unrealized gains from derivatives. The amount of Cash Available for Distribution principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate from quarter to quarter based upon, among other things:

	•		the cyclicality in the spot tanker market;
	•		the rates we obtain from our spot charters and time charters;
	•		the price and level of production of, and demand for, crude oil;
	•		the level of our operating costs, such as the cost of crews and insurance;
	•		the number of off-hire days for our fleet and the timing of, and number of days required for drydocking of our vessels;
	•		delays in the delivery of any newbuilding vessels;
	•		prevailing global and regional economic and political conditions; and
	•		the effect of governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards on the conduct of our business.

The actual amount of Cash Available for Distribution also will depend upon other factors, such as:

	•		the level of capital expenditures we make, including for maintaining existing vessels and acquiring new vessels, which we expect will be substantial;
	•		our debt service requirements and restrictions on distributions contained in our credit agreements;
	•		fluctuations in our working capital needs; and
	•		the amount of any cash reserves established by our board of directors, including reserves for working capital and other matters.

In addition, the declaration and payment of dividends is subject at all times to the discretion of our board of directors and compliance with the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands.

We depend significantly upon spot charters and any decrease in spot-charter rates may adversely affect our earnings and our ability to pay dividends.

Our fleet is comprised of nine double-hull Aframax tankers and three double-hull Suezmax tankers. As of March 1, 2010, five of these vessels were operating in the spot market through participation in pooling arrangements managed by subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation. In addition, we may employ in the spot market any additional vessels that we may acquire in the future or existing vessels upon the expiration of related time charters. Although the number of vessels in our fleet that participates in the spot market will vary from time to time, we anticipate that a significant portion of our fleet will participate in this market. As a result, our financial performance will be significantly affected by conditions in the oil tanker spot market and only our vessels that operate under fixed-rate time charters may, during the period such vessels operate under such time charters, provide a fixed source of revenue to us.

The spot market is highly volatile and fluctuates based upon tanker and oil supply and demand. The successful operation of our vessels in the spot market depends upon, among other things, obtaining profitable spot charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and traveling unladen to pick up cargo. In the past, there have been periods when spot rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. Future spot rates may decline significantly and may not be sufficient to enable our vessels trading in the spot market to operate profitably or for us to pay dividends.

We may hedge our exposure to the spot market’s volatility by entering into financial instruments such as freight forward agreements with respect to one or more of our tankers. This hedging technique, which would guarantee minimum revenues for the tankers subject to the agreements, could limit our profits during periods of rising spot-charter rates.

The cyclical nature of the tanker industry may lead to volatile changes in charter rates, which may adversely affect our earnings.

Historically, the tanker industry has been cyclical, experiencing volatility in profitability due to changes in the supply of and demand for tanker capacity and changes in the supply of and demand for oil and oil products. If the tanker market is depressed, our earnings and Cash Available for Distribution may decrease. Our exposure to industry business cycles is more acute because of our exposure to the spot market, which is more volatile than the tanker industry generally. Our ability to operate profitably in the spot market and to recharter our other vessels upon the expiration or termination of their charters will depend upon, among other factors, economic conditions in the tanker market.

The factors affecting the supply of and demand for tankers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Key factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:

	•		demand for oil and oil products;
	•		supply of oil and oil products;
	•		regional availability of refining capacity;
	•		global and regional economic conditions;
	•		the distance oil and oil products are to be moved by sea; and
	•		changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns.

Key factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

	•		the number of newbuilding deliveries;
	•		the scrapping rate of older vessels;
	•		conversion of tankers to other uses;
	•		the number of vessels that are out of service; and
	•		environmental concerns and regulations.

Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and factors that can affect the price and the supply of, and demand for, tanker capacity. Changes in demand for transportation of oil over longer distances and in the supply of tankers to carry that oil may materially affect our revenues, profitability and cash flows.

The continuation of recent economic conditions, including disruptions in the global credit markets, could adversely affect our ability to grow.

The recent economic downturn and financial crisis in the global markets have produced illiquidity in the capital markets, market volatility, heightened exposure to interest rate and credit risks and reduced access to capital markets. If this economic downturn continues, we may face restricted access to the capital markets or bank lending, which may make it more difficult and costly to fund future growth. The decreased access to such resources could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The recent economic downturn may affect our customers’ ability to charter our vessels and pay for our services and may adversely affect our business and results of operations.

The recent economic downturn in the global financial markets may lead to a decline in our customers’ operations or ability to pay for our services, which could result in decreased demand for our vessels and services. Our customer’s inability to pay could also result in their default on our current contracts and charters. The decline in the amount of services requested by our customers or their default on our contracts with them could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot determine whether the difficult conditions in the economy and the financial markets will improve or worsen in the near future.

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

Our dividend policy requires us to distribute all of our Cash Available for Distribution on a quarterly basis, subject to any reserves that our board of directors may determine are required for prudent conduct of its business. Accordingly, our growth, if any, may not be as fast as businesses that reinvest their cash to expand ongoing operations. In determining the amount of Cash Available for Distribution, our board of directors will consider contingent liabilities, the terms of our credit facilities, our other cash needs and the requirements of Marshall Islands law. We believe that we will generally finance any maintenance and expansion capital expenditures from cash balances or external financing sources (including borrowings under credit facilities and potential debt or equity issuances). To the extent we do not have sufficient cash reserves or are unable to obtain financing for these purposes, our dividend policy may significantly impair our ability to meet our financial needs or to grow.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, which may reduce the amount of cash for dividends to our stockholders.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet and we generally expect to finance these maintenance capital expenditures with cash balances or undrawn credit facilities. We anticipate growing our fleet through the acquisition of tankers from third parties or the acquisition of additional tankers which Teekay Corporation has agreed to offer us, or other tankers we expect Teekay Corporation will offer us from time to time in the future, which would increase the level of our maintenance capital expenditures. Subsequent to our initial public offering, we have acquired three Suezmax tankers from Teekay Corporation.

Maintenance capital expenditures include capital expenditures associated with drydocking a vessel, modifying an existing vessel or acquiring a new vessel to the extent these expenditures are incurred to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet. These expenditures could increase as a result of changes in:

	•		the cost of labor and materials;
	•		customer requirements;
	•		increases in our fleet size or the cost of replacement vessels;
	•		governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards relating to safety, security or the environment; and
	•		competitive standards.

In addition, maintenance capital expenditures will vary significantly from quarter to quarter based on the number of vessels drydocked during that quarter. Significant maintenance capital expenditures may reduce the amount of any dividends to our stockholders.

We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the size of our fleet. We generally will be required to make significant installment payments for any acquisitions of newbuilding vessels prior to their delivery and generation of revenue. Depending on whether we finance our expenditures through cash from operations or by issuing debt or equity securities, our ability to pay dividends may be diminished, our financial leverage could increase or our stockholders’ ownership interest in us could be diluted.

We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to increase the size of our fleet. We intend to expand our fleet by acquiring tankers from third parties or from Teekay Corporation, which has agreed to offer to us prior to June 18, 2010 the right to purchase another Suezmax tanker. We may acquire additional Aframax or Suezmax-class crude tankers or product tankers from Teekay Corporation in the future. Our acquisitions may also include newbuilding vessels (or newbuildings). We generally will be required to make installment payments on any newbuildings prior to their delivery. We typically would pay 20% of the purchase price of a tanker upon signing the purchase contract, even though delivery of the completed vessel will not occur until much later (approximately two to three years from the order). To fund expansion capital expenditures, we may be required to use cash balances or cash from operations, incur borrowings or raise capital through the sale of debt or additional equity securities. Use of cash from operations will reduce the amount of cash for dividends to our stockholders. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering, as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to obtain funds for capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and on our ability to pay dividends. Even if we are successful in obtaining the necessary funds, the terms of such financings could limit our ability to pay dividends to stockholders. In addition, incurring additional debt may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage, and issuing additional equity securities may result in significant stockholder ownership or dividend dilution.

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

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

We depend on Teekay Corporation to assist us in operating our business and competing in our markets, and our business will be harmed if Teekay Corporation fails to assist us.

We have entered into a long-term management agreement (or the Management Agreement) with Teekay Tankers Management Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation (or our Manager), pursuant to which our Manager provides to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services, including vessel maintenance, crewing, purchasing, shipyard supervision, insurance and financial services. Our operational success and ability to execute our growth strategy depend significantly upon the satisfactory performance of these services by our Manager. Our business will be harmed if our Manager fails to perform these services satisfactorily, if it stops providing these services to us or if it terminates the Management Agreement, as it is entitled to do under certain circumstances. The circumstances under which we are able to terminate the Management Agreement are extremely limited and do not include mere dissatisfaction with our Manager’s performance. In

addition, upon any termination of the Management Agreement, we may lose our ability to benefit from economies of scale in purchasing supplies and other advantages that we believe our relationship with Teekay Corporation provides. Furthermore, the profitable operation of our tankers that participate in tanker pooling arrangements depends largely on the efforts of the pool managers (which are affiliates of Teekay Corporation), Teekay Corporation’s participation in the pooling arrangements and its reputation and relationships in the shipping industry. Under the pooling arrangements, the earnings and voyage expenses of all of the vessels in pools are aggregated, or pooled, and divided according to an agreed formula. If Teekay Corporation suffers material damage to its reputation or relationships, it may harm our ability to:

	•		maximize revenues of our tankers included in the pooling arrangements;
	•		acquire new tankers or obtain new time charters;
	•		renew existing time charters upon their expiration;
	•		successfully interact with shipyards during periods of shipyard construction constraints;
	•		obtain financing on commercially acceptable terms; or
	•		maintain satisfactory relationships with suppliers and other third parties.

If our ability to do any of the things described above is impaired, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.

The operation of a significant number of our tankers in the Teekay Pool and Gemini Pool could limit our earnings.

As of March 1, 2010, four of our Aframax tankers and one of our Suezmax tankers operated in, and generated revenues to us through participation in, an Aframax tanker pooling arrangement (the Teekay Pool) and a Suezmax tanker pooling arrangement (the Gemini Pool), respectively, each managed by subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation. Pooling arrangements are designed to spread the costs and risks associated with commercial management of vessels and to share the net revenues earned by all of the vessels in the pool. Although the net revenues are apportioned based on the actual earning days each vessel is available and, with respect to the Teekay Pool, the relative performance capabilities of each vessel as well, a pool may include vessels that do not perform as well in actual operation as our vessels. As a result, our share of the net pool revenues may be less than what we could earn operating our vessels independently.

The removal of any vessels from the Teekay Pool, Gemini Pool, or any other pooling arrangement may adversely affect our operating results and ability to pay dividends.

We and Teekay Corporation have each committed to include in the Teekay Pool all of our and its respective Aframax-class crude tankers that are less than 15 years old and employed in the spot market or operate pursuant to time charters of less than 90 days. Participants in the Gemini Pool, including Teekay Corporation and third parties, have each agreed to include in the pool certain qualifying Suezmax-class crude tankers of the pool participants and their respective affiliates, including us, that operate in the spot market or pursuant to time charters of less than one year. If we or Teekay Corporation remove vessels in the Teekay Pool or the Gemini Pool to operate under longer-term time charters, the benefits to us of the pooling arrangements could diminish. In addition, the European Union is in the process of substantially reforming the way it regulates traditional agreements for maritime services from an antitrust perspective. These changes may impose new restrictions on the way pools are operated or may prohibit pooling arrangements altogether. If for any reason our vessels, Teekay Corporation’s vessels, or any third party vessels cease to participate in the Teekay Pool, the Gemini Pool or another pooling arrangement, or if the pooling arrangements are significantly restricted, we may not achieve the benefits intended by pool participation and our results of operations and ability to pay dividends could be harmed.

Our failure to renew or replace fixed-rate charters could cause us to trade the related vessels in the spot market, which could adversely affect our operating results and make them more volatile.

As of March 1, 2010, seven of our tankers operated under fixed-rate time-charter contracts, two of which expire in 2010, four in 2011, and one in 2012. If upon their scheduled expiration or any early termination we are unable to renew or replace fixed-rate charters on favorable terms, if at all, or if we choose not to renew or replace these fixed-rate charters, we may employ the vessels in the volatile spot market. Increasing our exposure to the spot market, particularly during periods of unfavorable market conditions, could harm our results of operations and make them more volatile.

Our vessels operate in the highly competitive international tanker market.

The operation of oil tankers and transportation of crude oil and refined petroleum products are extremely competitive businesses. Competition arises primarily from other tanker owners, including major oil companies and independent tanker companies, some of which have substantially greater financial strength and capital than do we or Teekay Corporation. Competition for the transportation of oil and oil products can be intense and depends on price and the location, size, age, condition of the tanker and the acceptability of the tanker and its operators to the charterers. Our competitive position may erode over time.

We may not be able to grow or to manage our growth effectively.

One of our principal strategies is to continue to grow by expanding our operations and adding vessels to our fleet. Our future growth will depend upon a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include our ability to:

	•		identify suitable tankers or shipping companies for acquisitions or joint ventures;
	•		integrate successfully any acquired tankers or businesses with our existing operations; and
	•		obtain required financing for our existing and any new operations.

In addition, competition from other companies, many of which have significantly greater financial resources than do we or Teekay Corporation, may reduce our acquisition opportunities or cause us to pay higher prices. Our failure to effectively identify, purchase, develop and integrate any tankers or businesses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not realize expected benefits from acquisitions, and implementing our growth strategy through acquisitions may harm our financial condition and performance.

Any acquisition of a vessel or business may not be profitable at or after the time of acquisition and may not generate cash flows sufficient to justify the investment. In addition, our acquisition growth strategy exposes us to risks that may harm our business, financial condition and operating results, including risks that we may:

	•		fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements;
	•		be unable to hire, train or retain qualified shore and seafaring personnel to manage and operate our growing business and fleet;
	•		decrease our liquidity by using a significant portion of available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions;
	•		significantly increase our interest expense or financial leverage if we incur additional debt to finance acquisitions;
	•		incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with any vessels or businesses acquired; or
	•		incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.

Unlike newbuildings, existing vessels typically do not carry warranties as to their condition. While we generally inspect existing vessels prior to purchase, such an inspection would normally not provide us with as much knowledge of a vessel’s condition as we would possess if it had been built for us and operated by us during its life. Repairs and maintenance costs for existing vessels are difficult to predict and may be substantially higher than for vessels we have operated since they were built. These costs could decrease our cash flows, liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations.

Our tankers operate in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in tanker demand and, therefore, in spot-charter rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our results of operations. Tanker markets are typically stronger in the winter months as a result of 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. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns during the winter months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling, which historically has increased oil price volatility and oil trading activities in the winter months. 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, and stronger in our fiscal quarters ended December 31 and March 31.

Delays in deliveries of any newbuildings could harm our operating results.

The delivery of any newbuilding that we may order could be delayed, which would delay our receipt of revenues related to the vessel. The completion and delivery of newbuildings could be delayed because of:

	•		quality or engineering problems;
	•		changes in governmental regulations or maritime self-regulatory organization standards;
	•		work stoppages or other labor disturbances at the shipyard;
	•		bankruptcy or other financial crisis of the shipbuilder;
	•		a backlog of orders at the shipyard;
	•		political or economic disturbances;
	•		weather interference or catastrophic event, such as a major earthquake or fire;
	•		requests for changes to the original vessel specifications;
	•		shortages of or delays in the receipt of necessary construction materials, such as steel;
	•		an inability to finance the construction of the vessels; or
	•		an inability to obtain requisite permits or approvals.

If delivery of a vessel is significantly delayed, it could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Over time, the value of our vessels may decline substantially, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain financing or our operating results.

Vessel values for oil tankers can fluctuate substantially over time due to a number of different factors. Vessel values may decline substantially from existing levels, as they have done as a result of the recent global economic crisis. If the operation of a tanker is not profitable, or if we cannot re-deploy a chartered tanker at attractive rates upon charter termination, rather than continue to incur costs to maintain and finance the vessel, we may seek to dispose of it. Inability to dispose of vessels at a reasonable value could result in a loss on their sale and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, one of our credit facilities contains loan-to-value financial covenants tied to the value of the two vessels that collateralize this credit facility. Significant decline in the market values of these tankers may require prepayments to avoid a default under this credit facility. Further, if we determine at any time that a vessel’s future useful life and earnings require us to impair its value on our financial statements, we may need to recognize a significant charge against our earnings.

An increase in operating costs could adversely affect our cash flows and financial condition.

Under our Management Agreement, we must reimburse our Manager for vessel operating expenses (including crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils and communication expenses), and in addition for spot or voyage charters, voyage expenses (including bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and conversions). These expenses depend upon a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our or our Manager’s control. Some of these costs, primarily relating to fuel, insurance and enhanced security measures, have been increasing and may increase in the future. Increases in any of these costs would decrease our earnings and may decrease the amount of any dividends to our stockholders.

We are unable to quantify in advance the amount of fees we will pay under our Management Agreement, which vary from period to period.

We are unable to quantify in advance the fees for services provided to us under our Management Agreement because the payment amounts due and the particular amounts or mix of services to be provided under that agreement are based upon costs of our Manager and based on the revenues earned in the pools and from time charters. The aggregate amount of these fees varies from period to period, which affects the amount of our Cash Available for Distribution.

Our substantial debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing, pursuing other business opportunities and paying dividends.

As of December 31, 2009, our consolidated debt was approximately $305.2 million and an additional $123.7 million was available to us under our $401.0 million revolving credit facility. We will continue to have the ability to incur additional debt, subject to limitations in our revolving credit facility. Our level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

	•		our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be available on favorable terms;
	•		we will need a substantial portion of our cash flow to make principal and interest payments on our debt, reducing the funds that would otherwise be available for operations, business opportunities and dividends to our stockholders;
	•		our debt level will make us more vulnerable than our competitors with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn in our industry or the economy generally; and
	•		our debt level may limit our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions.

Our ability to service our debt depends upon, among other things, our financial and operating performance, which is affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing dividends, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt, or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

Financing agreements containing operating and financial restrictions may restrict our business and financing activities.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our revolving credit facility, term loan and in any of our future financing agreements could adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to pursue and expand our business activities. For example, these financing arrangements may restrict our ability to:

	•		pay dividends;
	•		incur or guarantee indebtedness;
	•		change ownership or structure, including mergers, consolidations, liquidations and dissolutions;
	•		grant liens on our assets;
	•		sell, transfer, assign or convey assets;
	•		make certain investments; and
	•		enter into a new line of business.

Our ability to comply with covenants and restrictions contained in debt instruments may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, we may fail to comply with these covenants. If we breach any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in the financing agreements, our obligations may become immediately due and payable, and the lenders’ commitment, if any, to make further loans may terminate. A default under financing agreements could also result in foreclosure on any of our vessels and other assets securing related loans.

Restrictions in our debt agreements may prevent us from paying dividends.

The payment of principal and interest on our debt reduces the amount of cash for dividends to our stockholders. In addition, our revolving credit facility prohibits and other financing agreements may prohibit the payment of dividends upon the occurrence of the following events, among others:

	•		failure to pay any principal, interest, fees, expenses or other amounts when due;
	•		failure to notify the lenders of any material oil spill or discharge of hazardous material, or of any action or claim related thereto;
	•		breach or lapse of any insurance with respect to vessels securing the facility;
	•		breach of certain financial covenants;
	•		failure to observe any other agreement, security instrument, obligation or covenant beyond specified cure periods in certain cases;
	•		default under other indebtedness;
	•		bankruptcy or insolvency events;
	•		failure of any representation or warranty to be materially correct;
	•		a change of control, as defined in the applicable agreement; and
	•		a material adverse effect, as defined in the applicable agreement.

Terrorist attacks, piracy, increased hostilities or war could lead to further economic instability, increased costs and disruption of business.

Terrorist attacks, piracy and the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other current and future conflicts, may adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, and ability to raise capital and future growth. Continuing hostilities in the Middle East may lead to additional armed conflicts or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the United States or elsewhere, which may contribute further to economic instability and disruption of oil production and distribution, which could result in reduced demand for our services.

In addition, oil facilities, shipyards, vessels, pipelines and oil fields could be targets of future terrorist attacks and our vessels could be targets of pirates or hijackers. Any such attacks could lead to, among other things, bodily injury or loss of life, vessel or other property damage, increased vessel operational costs, including insurance costs, and the inability to transport oil to or from certain locations. Terrorist attacks, war, piracy, hijacking or other events beyond our control that adversely affect the distribution, production or transportation of oil to be shipped by us could entitle customers to terminate the charters which would harm our cash flow and business.

Our substantial operations outside the United States expose us to political, governmental and economic instability, which could harm our operations.

Because our operations are primarily conducted outside of the United States, they may be affected by economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we engage in business or where our vessels are registered. Any disruption caused by these factors could harm our business, including by reducing the levels of oil exploration, development and production activities in these areas. We derive some of our revenues from shipping oil from politically unstable regions. Conflicts in these regions have included attacks on ships and other efforts to disrupt shipping. Hostilities or other political instability in regions where we operate or where we may operate could have a material adverse effect on the growth of our business, results of operations and financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. In addition, tariffs, trade embargoes and other economic sanctions by the United States elsewhere as a result of terrorist attacks, hostilities or otherwise may limit trading activities with those countries, which could also harm our business and ability to make cash distributions. Finally, a government could requisition one or more of our vessels, which is most likely during war or national emergency. Any such requisition would cause a loss of the vessel and could harm our cash flow and financial results.

Marine transportation is inherently risky, and an incident involving significant loss of product or environmental contamination by any of our vessels could harm our reputation and business.

Vessels and their cargoes are at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as:

	•		marine disasters;
	•		bad weather;
	•		mechanical or electrical failures;
	•		grounding, capsizing, fire, explosions and collisions;
	•		piracy;
	•		human error; and
	•		war and terrorism.

An accident involving any of our vessels could result in any of the following:

	•		death or injury to persons, loss of property or damage to the environment and natural resources;
	•		delays in the delivery of cargo;
	•		loss of revenues from charters;
	•		liabilities or costs to recover any spilled oil or other petroleum products and to restore the eco-system where the spill occurred;
	•		governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business;
	•		higher insurance rates; and
	•		damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally.

Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Insurance may be insufficient to cover losses that may occur to our vessels or result from our operations.

The operation of oil tankers is inherently risky. All risks may not be adequately insured against, and any particular claim may not be paid by insurance. In addition, none of our vessels is insured against loss of revenues resulting from vessel off-hire time. Any claims covered by insurance would be subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material. Certain insurance coverage is maintained through mutual protection and indemnity associations, and as a member of such associations our Manager may be required to make additional payments (which we are required to reimburse) over and above budgeted premiums if member claims exceed association reserves.

Our Manager may be unable to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could exceed the insurance coverage, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business and financial condition. In addition, the insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain actions, such as vessels failing to maintain certification with applicable maritime self-regulatory organizations.

Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of insurance more difficult to obtain. In addition, the insurance that may be available may be significantly more expensive than existing coverage.

The shipping industry is subject to substantial environmental and other regulations, which may significantly limit operations and increase expenses.

Our operations are affected by extensive and changing international, national and local environmental protection laws, regulations, treaties and conventions in force in international waters, the jurisdictional waters of the countries in which our vessels operate, as well as the countries of our vessels’ registration, including those governing oil spills, discharges to air and water, and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. Many of these requirements are designed to reduce the risk of oil spills and other pollution. In addition, we believe that the heightened environmental, quality and security concerns of insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers will lead to additional regulatory requirements, including enhanced risk assessment and security requirements and greater inspection and safety requirements on vessels. We expect to incur substantial expenses in complying with these laws and regulations, including expenses for vessel modifications and changes in operating procedures.

These requirements can affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels, require a reduction in cargo capacity, ship modifications or operational changes or restrictions, lead to decreased availability of insurance coverage for environmental matters or result in the denial of access to certain jurisdictional waters or ports, or detention in, certain ports. Under local, national and foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material liabilities, including cleanup obligations, in the event that there is a release of petroleum or other hazardous substances from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our operations. We could also become subject to personal injury or property damage claims relating to the release of or exposure to hazardous materials associated with our operations. In addition, failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations, including, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels.

The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (or OPA 90), for instance, allows for potentially unlimited liability for owners, operators and bareboat charterers for oil pollution and related damages in U.S. waters, which include the U.S. territorial sea and the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States, without regard to fault of such owners, operators and bareboat charterers. OPA 90 expressly permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to hazardous materials and oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries. Coastal states in the United States have enacted pollution prevention liability and response laws, many providing for unlimited liability. Similarly, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, as amended, which has been adopted by many countries outside of the United States, imposes liability for oil pollution in international waters. In addition, in complying with OPA 90, regulations of the International Maritime Organization (or IMO), European Union directives and other existing laws and regulations and those that may be adopted, ship-owners may incur significant additional costs in meeting new maintenance and inspection requirements, in developing contingency arrangements for potential spills and in obtaining insurance coverage.

Various jurisdictions, including the IMO and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA), have recently adopted regulations governing the management of ballast water to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species considered to be invasive. The EPA’s new ballast water treatment and other ballast water obligations will increase the cost of operating our vessels in United States waters.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and markets.

Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

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

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which could interrupt our cash flow.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against that vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lienholder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of funds to have the arrest or attachment lifted. In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet or in the Teekay Pool or the Gemini Pool for claims relating to another of our ships.

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

Our primary economic environment is the international shipping market, which utilizes the U.S. Dollar as its functional currency. Consequently, virtually all of our revenues and the majority of our expenses are in U.S. Dollars. However, we incur certain voyage expenses, vessel operating expenses, and general and administrative expenses in foreign currencies, the most significant of which are the Canadian Dollar, Euro, British Pound and Norwegian Kroner. This partial mismatch in revenues and expenses could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. Dollar relative to other currencies.

Many seafaring employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements, and the failure to renew those agreements or any future labor agreements may disrupt operations and adversely affect our cash flows.

A significant portion of Teekay Corporation’s seafarers that crew our vessels are employed under collective bargaining agreements. Teekay Corporation may become subject to additional labor agreements in the future. Teekay Corporation may suffer labor disruptions if relationships deteriorate with the seafarers or the unions that represent them. The collective bargaining agreements may not prevent labor disruptions, particularly when the agreements are being renegotiated. Salaries are typically renegotiated annually or biannually for seafarers. Although these negotiations have not caused labor disruptions in the past, any labor disruptions could harm our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Teekay Corporation may be unable to attract and retain qualified, skilled employees or crew necessary to operate our business.

Our success depends in large part on Teekay Corporation’s ability to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel. In crewing our vessels, we require technically skilled employees with specialized training who can perform physically demanding work. Competition to attract and retain qualified crew members is intense. These costs have continued to increase to date in 2010, but to a lesser extent compared to 2009. If we are not able to increase our rates to compensate for any crew cost increases, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. Any inability we experience in the future to hire, train and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees could impair our ability to manage, maintain and grow our business.

Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us

Teekay Corporation and its affiliates may engage in competition with us, and we have agreed that Teekay Corporation may pursue business opportunities that may be attractive to both it and us.

Teekay Corporation may compete with us and is not contractually restricted from doing so. In our articles of incorporation and in a contribution, conveyance and assumption agreement with Teekay Corporation, we have renounced business opportunities that may be attractive to both Teekay Corporation and us in favor of Teekay Corporation, which may strengthen Teekay Corporation’s ability to compete with us.

Our Aframax tankers that operate in the spot market and Teekay Corporation’s Aframax tankers that operate in the spot market or pursuant to time charters of less than 90 days are part of the Teekay Pool. One of our Suezmax tankers and certain Suezmax tankers of Teekay Corporation currently participate in the Gemini Pool. These pooling arrangements are managed by Teekay Corporation subsidiaries. When operated in a pool, chartering decisions are made by the pool manager and vessel earnings are based on a formula designed to allocate the pool’s earnings to vessel owners based on actual on-hire performance of the vessels they contributed and, with respect to the Teekay Pool, attributes of the vessels, rather than amounts actually earned by those vessels. If we, Teekay Corporation or its affiliates terminate the pooling arrangements in which we participate pursuant to the terms thereof or if vessels of Teekay Corporation or us cease operating in the pooling arrangements for any other reason, our tankers may compete with other vessels owned or operated by Teekay Corporation to provide crude oil transportation services.

In addition, we may compete with Teekay Corporation in seeking to charter any vessels in our fleet under fixed-rate time charters, whether upon the expiration or early termination of existing time charters or otherwise.

Our executive officers and the officers of our Manager do not devote all of their time to our business, which may hinder our ability to operate successfully.

Our executive officers and the officers of our Manager are involved in other Teekay Corporation business activities, which may result in their spending less time than is appropriate or necessary to manage our business successfully.

Our executive officers and directors and the executive officers and directors of our Manager have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary and contractual duties, which may permit them to favor interests of other Teekay Corporation affiliates above our interests and those of our Class A common stockholders.

Conflicts of interest may arise between Teekay Corporation, our Manager and their affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our stockholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, Teekay Corporation or our Manager may favor their own interests and the interests of their affiliates over our interests and those of our stockholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:

	•		our Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and certain of our directors also serve as executive officers or directors of Teekay Corporation or our Manager, and we have limited their fiduciary duties regarding corporate opportunities that may be attractive to both Teekay Corporation and us;
	•		our Manager advises our board of directors about the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional common stock and cash reserves, each of which can affect the amount of any dividends to our stockholders and the amount of the performance fee payable to our Manager under the Management Agreement;
	•		our executive officers and those of our Manager do not spend all of their time on matters related to our business; and
	•		our Manager will advise us of costs incurred by it and its affiliates that it believes are reimbursable by us.

The fiduciary duties of certain of our officers and directors may conflict with their duties as officers or directors of Teekay Corporation and its affiliates.

Our officers and directors have fiduciary duties to manage our business in a manner beneficial to us and our stockholders. However, our Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and all of our non-independent directors also serve as executive officers or directors of Teekay Corporation, our Manager, the general partner of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. and the general partner of Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. (both of which are controlled by Teekay Corporation), and, as a result, have fiduciary duties to manage the business of Teekay Corporation and its affiliates in a manner beneficial to such entities and their stockholders or partners, as the case may be. Consequently, these officers and directors may encounter situations in which their fiduciary obligations to Teekay Corporation, our Manager, Teekay LNG Partners L.P. or Teekay Offshore Partners L.P., on the one hand, and us, on the other hand, are in conflict. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest or that of our stockholders.

Our Manager has rights to terminate the Management Agreement and, under certain circumstances, could receive substantial sums in connection with such termination; however, even if our board of directors or our stockholders are dissatisfied with our Manager, there are limited circumstances under which we can terminate the Management Agreement.

Our Management Agreement has an initial term through December 31, 2022 and will automatically renew for subsequent five-year terms provided that certain conditions are met. Our Manager has the right after December 18, 2012 to terminate the Management Agreement with 12 months’ notice. Our Manager also has the right to terminate the Management Agreement after a dispute resolution process if we have materially breached the Management Agreement. The Management Agreement will terminate upon the sale of all or substantially all of our assets to a third party, our liquidation or after any change of control of our company occurs. If the Management Agreement is terminated as a result of an asset sale, our liquidation or change of control, then our Manager may be paid a termination fee. Any such payment could be substantial.

In addition, our rights to terminate the Management Agreement are limited. Even if we are not satisfied with the Manager’s efforts in managing our business, unless our Manager materially breaches the agreement or experiences certain bankruptcy or change of control events, we have only a limited right to terminate the agreement after 10 years and may not be able to terminate the agreement until the end of the initial 15-year term. If we elect to terminate the Management Agreement at either of these points or at the end of any subsequent renewal term, our Manager will receive a termination fee, which may be substantial.

Our Manager could receive a performance fee if our Gross Cash Available for Distribution exceeds a certain incentive threshold, which would reduce the amount of dividends to our stockholders.

If Gross Cash Available for Distribution for a given fiscal year exceeds $3.20 per share of our common stock (subject to adjustment for stock dividends, splits, combinations and similar events, and based on the weighted-average number of shares outstanding for the year) (or the Incentive Threshold), our Manager generally will be entitled to payment of a performance fee equal to 20% of all Gross Cash Available for Distribution for such year in excess of the Incentive Threshold. Although the performance fee is payable on an annual basis, we accrue any amounts expected to be payable in respect of the performance fee on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, dividends to our stockholders in any quarter may be reduced. Gross Cash Available for Distribution represents Cash Available for Distribution before giving effect to any deduction for performance fees payable to our Manager and reduced by the amount of any reserves our board of directors may have taken during the applicable fiscal period that have not already reduced Cash Available for Distribution.

The concentration of our capital stock ownership with Teekay Corporation and its affiliates and the superior voting rights of our Class B common stock held by Teekay Corporation limit our Class A common stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters.

Our Class B common stock has five votes per share and our Class A common stock has one vote per share. However, the voting power of the Class B common stock is limited such that the aggregate voting power of all shares of outstanding Class B common stock can at no time exceed 49% of the voting power of our outstanding Class A common stock and Class B common stock, voting together as a single class. As of the date of this Annual Report, Teekay Corporation indirectly owns shares of Class A and Class B common stock representing a majority of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. Through its ownership of our Class B common stock and of our Manager and other entities that provide services to us, Teekay Corporation has substantial control and influence over our management and affairs and over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and significant corporate transactions. In addition, because of this dual-class common stock structure, Teekay Corporation will continue to be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval even if it comes to own significantly less than 50% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. This concentrated control limits our Class A common stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and, as a result, we may take actions that our Class A common stockholders do not view as beneficial.

We have been incorporated under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate law.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by The Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act (or the Marshall Islands Act). Many of the provisions of the Marshall Islands Act resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States, most notably Delaware. The Marshall Islands Act also provides that it is to be applied and construed to make it uniform with the Delaware General Corporation Law and the laws of other states of the United States with substantially similar legislative provisions. In addition, so long as it does not conflict with the Marshall Islands Act, the non-statutory law (or case law) of the courts of the State of Delaware and of those other states of the United States with substantially similar legislative provisions is adopted as Marshall Islands law. There have been, however, few, if any, court cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the Marshall Islands Act, in contrast to Delaware, which has a well-developed body of case law interpreting its corporations statutes. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether Marshall Islands courts would reach the same conclusions regarding the Marshall Islands Act as Delaware courts would in respect of the Delaware General Corporation Law. For example, the rights of our stockholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under the Marshall Islands Act are not as clearly established as under judicial precedent in existence in Delaware. As a result, stockholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by our officers and directors than would stockholders of a corporation formed in Delaware.

Because we are organized under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands, it may be difficult to serve us with legal process or enforce judgments against us, our directors or our management.

We are organized under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands, and all of our assets are located outside of the United States. Our headquarters are located in Bermuda. In addition, some of our directors and a majority of our officers are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for stockholders to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States if stockholders believe that their rights have been infringed under securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Marshall Islands and of other jurisdictions may prevent or restrict them from enforcing a judgment against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read Item 4D: “Taxation of the Company” and Item 10: “Additional Information — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” and — “Non-United States Consideration” for a more complete discussion of the expected material U.S. federal and non-U.S. income tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of our Class A common stock.

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

A foreign entity taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company” (or PFIC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes if at least 75.0% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income,” or at least 50.0% of the average value of the entity’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties, other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. By contrast, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.”

There are legal uncertainties involved in determining whether the income derived from our time chartering activities constitutes rental income or income derived from the performance of services, including the decision in Tidewater Inc. v. United States, 565 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. April 13, 2009), which held that income derived from certain time chartering activities should be treated as rental income rather than services income for purposes of a foreign sales corporation provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the Code) and a recent unofficial IRS pronouncement issued to provide guidance to IRS field employees and examiners, which cites the Tidewater decision favorably in support of the conclusion that income derived by foreign taxpayers from time chartering vessels engaged in the exploration for, or exploitation of, natural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico is characterized as leasing or rental income for purposes of the income sourcing provisions of the Code. However, we believe that the nature of our chartering activities, as well as our charter contracts, differ in certain material respects from those at issue in Tidewater. Consequently, based on our current assets and operations, we intend to take the position that we are not now and have never been a PFIC. No assurance can be given, however, that the IRS, or a court of law, will accept our position or that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in our assets, income or operations.

If the IRS were to determine that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, U.S. holders of our common stock will face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those U.S. holders make certain elections available under the Code, such holders would be liable to pay tax at ordinary income tax rates plus interest upon certain distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our common stock, as if such distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the U.S. holder’s holding period. Please read Part II, “Item 5. Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consideration—United States Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders—Consequences of Possible PFIC Classification” in this Report on Form 6-K.

The preferential tax rates applicable to qualified dividend income are temporary, and the absence of legislation extending the term would cause our dividends to be taxed at ordinary graduated tax rates.

Certain of our distributions may be treated as qualified dividend income eligible for preferential rates of U.S. federal income tax to U.S. individual stockholders (and certain other U.S. stockholders). In the absence of legislation extending the term for these preferential tax rates or providing for some other treatment, all dividends received by such U.S. taxpayers in tax years beginning on January 1, 2011 or later will be taxed at ordinary graduated tax rates. Please read Item 10: “Additional Information—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders—Distributions.”

We may be subject to taxes, which reduces our Cash Available for Distribution to you.

We or some of our subsidiaries may be subject to tax in the jurisdictions in which we or our subsidiaries are organized or operate, reducing the amount of our Cash Available for Distribution. In computing our tax obligation in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that upon review of these positions the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries in jurisdictions in which operations are conducted. For example, if Teekay Tankers Ltd was not able to meet the criteria specified by Section 883 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, our U.S. source income may become subject to taxation.

Item 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company

We are a Marshall Islands corporation that was incorporated on October 17, 2007 by Teekay Corporation (NYSE: TK). On December 18, 2007, we completed our initial public offering of 11.5 million shares of our Class A common stock at a price of $19.50 per share. Concurrently with our initial public offering, a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation transferred nine wholly owned subsidiaries to us, each of which owns one Aframax-class oil tanker, in exchange for 12.5 million shares of our Class B common stock (which entitles the holders thereof to five votes per share, subject to a 49% aggregate Class B common stock voting power maximum), 2.5 million shares of our Class A common stock (which entitles the holders thereof to one vote per share) and a $180.8 million non-interest bearing promissory note. We raised $209.6 million from our initial public offering, of which we used $180.8 million to repay the $180.8 million promissory note from Teekay Corporation and we used $27.4 million to repurchase 1.5 million shares of Class A common stock from Teekay Corporation at a price per share equal to the initial public offering price.

On April 7, 2008, we acquired two double-hull Suezmax tankers from Teekay Corporation, the 2002-built Ganges Spirit and the 2003-built Narmada Spirit, for a total cost of $186.9 million, excluding $1.4 million of working capital assumed. These acquisitions were financed by assuming existing debt of $68.5 million related to the vessels and utilizing our revolving credit facility for the remainder of the purchase price.

On June 24, 2009, we acquired a Suezmax tanker from Teekay Corporation, the 2003-built Ashkini Spirit, for a total cost of $57.0 million, excluding $0.7 million of working capital assumed. This acquisition was financed by the net proceeds of a follow-on offering of 7.0 million shares of our Class A common stock at $9.80 per share.

We are incorporated under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands as Teekay Tankers Ltd. and maintain our principal executive offices at 4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda. Our telephone number at such address is (441) 298-2530. Our principal operating office is located at Suite 2000, Bentall 5, 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 2K2. Our telephone number at such address is (604) 683-3529.

B. Business Overview

Our business is to own oil tankers and we employ a chartering strategy that seeks to capture upside opportunities in the spot market while using fixed-rate time charters to reduce downside risks. Teekay Corporation, which formed us, is a leading provider of marine services to the global oil and natural gas industries and the world’s largest operator of medium-sized oil tankers. We believe we benefit from Teekay Corporation’s expertise, relationships and reputation as we operate our fleet and pursue growth opportunities. We distribute to our stockholders on a quarterly basis all of our Cash Available for Distribution, subject to any reserves our board of directors may from time to time determine are required for the prudent conduct of our business. Cash Available for Distribution represents our net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, unrealized losses from derivatives, non-cash items and any write-offs or other non-recurring items less net income attributable to the Dropdown Predecessor, and unrealized gains from derivatives. For additional information about our dividend policy, please read Item 8: “Financial Information—Dividend Policy.”

Under the supervision of our executive officers and board of directors, our operations are managed by Teekay Tankers Management Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation (our Manager) that provides to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services. We employ our chartering strategy based on the outlook of our Manager for freight rates, oil tanker market conditions and global economic conditions. As of March 1, 2010, we owned twelve vessels. As of the same date, four of our Aframax tankers were commercially managed in the Teekay Pool and one Suezmax tanker was commercially managed in the Gemini Pool. Our remaining seven vessels operated under fixed-rate time-charter contracts as of that date. The Teekay Pool and Gemini Pool are pooling arrangements managed by subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation and which include certain vessels of us, Teekay Corporation and, with respect to the Gemini Pool, third party operators that are employed in the spot market or operate pursuant to time charters of less than 90 days, for Teekay Pool, or less than one year, for the Gemini Pool. By employing some of our vessels in these pooling arrangements, we believe we benefit from Teekay Corporation’s expertise in commercial management of oil tankers and economies of scale of a larger fleet, including higher vessel utilization and daily revenues. We also believe that these pooling arrangements limit Teekay Corporation’s ability to compete with us in the spot market.

In connection with our initial public offering in December 2007, Teekay Corporation agreed to offer to us the right to purchase from it up to four existing Suezmax-class oil tankers. In April 2008, we acquired two Suezmax tankers, the Ganges Spirit and the Narmada Spirit, pursuant to this commitment and in June 2009, we completed the acquisition of the third Suezmax tanker, the Ashkini Spirit. Teekay Corporation has agreed to offer to us, prior to June 18, 2010, the right to purchase a fourth Suezmax tanker. The purchase price for any of these four Suezmax tankers is the vessel’s fair market value at the time of offer, taking into account any existing charter contracts and based on independent ship broker valuations. We also anticipate additional opportunities to expand our fleet through acquisitions of tankers from third parties and additional tankers that we expect Teekay Corporation will offer to us from time to time. These tankers may include crude oil and product tankers.

We have entered into a long-term agreement with our Manager (the Management Agreement) pursuant to which our Manager and its affiliates provide to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services, other than commercial services provided by other Teekay Corporation subsidiaries that manage the Teekay Pool and the Gemini Pool. We pay our Manager a market-based fee for these services. In order to provide our Manager with an incentive to increase our Cash Available for Distribution, we have agreed to pay a performance fee to our Manager under certain circumstances, in addition to the basic fee provided in the Management Agreement. Please read Item 7: “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Management Agreement,” for additional information about the Management Agreement.

Our Fleet

As of March 1, 2010, our fleet consisted of nine Aframax-class oil tankers and three Suezmax-class oil tankers, all of which are of Marshall Islands registry.

The following table provides additional information about our Aframax-class oil tankers as of March 1, 2010.

		Capacity																Expiration of
Vessel		(dwt)(1)				Built				Employment				Daily Rate				Charter
Erik Spirit			115,500				2005			Time charter				$	28,750			Dec. 2010
Matterhorn Spirit			114,800				2005			Pool					—				—
Everest Spirit			115,000				2004			Time charter				$	17,400			Feb. 2011
Kanata Spirit			113,000				1999			Pool					—				—
Kareela Spirit			113,100				1999			Time charter				$	29,000			Nov. 2011
Kyeema Spirit			113,300				1999			Time charter				$	31,000			Nov. 2011
Nassau Spirit			107,100				1999			Time charter				$	32,500			Aug. 2010
Falster Spirit			95,400				1995			Pool					—				—
Sotra Spirit			95,400				1995			Pool					—				—
Total capacity			982,600

The following table provides additional information about our Suezmax-class oil tankers as of March 1, 2010.

		Capacity																Expiration of
Vessel		(dwt)(1)				Built				Employment				Daily Rate				Charter
Ganges Spirit(2)			159,500				2002			Time charter				$	30,500			May 2012
Narmada Spirit(3)			159,200				2003			Time charter				$	19,500			Dec. 2011
Ashkini Spirit			165,200				2003			Pool					—				—
Total capacity			483,900

Please read Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report for information with respect to major encumbrances against our vessels. As of March 1, 2010, we had no commitments to construct new vessels or acquire second hand vessels.

Our Charters and Participation in the Teekay Pool and Gemini Pool

Chartering Strategy. We operate our vessels in both the spot market and under time-charters of varying lengths up to three years in an effort to maximize cash flow from our vessels based on our Manager’s outlook for freight rates, oil tanker market conditions and global economic conditions. As of March 1, 2010, four of our vessels operated in the spot market through our participation in the Teekay Pool, one vessel operated in the spot market through our participation in the Gemini Pool, and seven of our vessels operated under fixed-rate time-charter contracts. Our mix of vessels trading in the spot market or subject to fixed-rate time charters will change from time to time. Our Manager also may seek to hedge our spot exposure through the use of freight forward agreements or other financial instruments. Likewise, the managers of the Teekay Pool and Gemini Pool may, with our approval, enter into fixed-rate time charters for vessels we include in those pooling arrangements, thereby decreasing spot-rate exposure without withdrawing the vessels from the pooling arrangements.

Voyage Charters. Tankers operating in the spot market typically are chartered for a single voyage, which may last up to several weeks. Spot-market revenues may generate increased profit margins during times when tanker rates are increasing, while tankers operating under fixed-rate time charters generally provide more predictable cash flows.

Under a typical voyage charter in the spot market, the shipowner is paid on the basis of moving cargo from a loading port to a discharge port. The shipowner is responsible for paying both vessel operating costs and voyage expenses, and the charterer is responsible for any delay at the loading or discharging ports. Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and commissions. Vessel operating expenses include crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils and communication expenses. When the vessel is “off-hire,” or not available for service, the shipowner generally is not entitled to payment, unless the charterer is responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the lack of availability. Under a voyage charter, the shipowner is generally required, among other things, to keep the vessel seaworthy, to crew and maintain the vessel and to comply with applicable regulations.

The Teekay and Gemini Pools. As of March 1, 2010, the Teekay Pool included 19 Aframax crude tankers, including four of our vessels, and the Gemini Pool included 42 Suezmax crude tankers, including one of our vessels. Under the pooling arrangements, the aggregate revenues generated by the entire applicable pool are distributed to pool members, including us, pursuant to a pre-arranged weighting system based on actual earnings days each vessel is available during the applicable period and, with respect to the Teekay Pool only, each vessel’s earnings capability based on its cargo capacity, speed and bunker consumption as well. Payments based on net cash flow applicable to each tanker in the pooling arrangements are made on a monthly basis to pool participants.

The weighting allocation for vessels in the Teekay Pool is revised at least every six months and vessels are allocated their initial weighting upon their entry into the Teekay Pool. The allocation for each vessel participating in the Teekay Pool is established based on the recommendation of an independent specialist or maritime consultant. Please read Item 7: “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Pooling Arrangements,” for additional information about the Teekay Pool and the Gemini Pool.

Time Charters. A time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a fixed period of time at a specified daily rate. A customer generally selects a time charter if it wants a dedicated vessel for a period of time, and the customer is commercially responsible for the use of the vessel. Under a typical time charter, the shipowner provides crewing and other services related to the vessel’s operation, the cost of which is included in the daily rate, while the customer is responsible for substantially all of the voyage expenses. When the vessel is off-hire, the customer generally is not required to pay the hire rate and the owner is responsible for all costs. “Hire rate” refers to the basic payment from the charterer for the use of the vessel. Under our time charters, hire is payable monthly in advance in U.S. Dollars. Hire payments may be reduced, or under some time charters the shipowner must pay liquidated damages, if the vessel does not perform to certain of its specifications, such as if the average vessel speed falls below a guaranteed level or the amount of fuel consumed to power the vessel under normal circumstances exceeds a guaranteed amount. When the vessel is “off-hire,” or not available for service, the charterer generally is not required to pay the hire rate, and the shipowner is responsible for all costs, including the cost of fuel bunkers, unless the charterer is responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the lack of availability. A vessel generally will be deemed to be off-hire if there is an occurrence preventing the full working of the vessel.

Business Strategies

Our primary business objective is to increase dividends per share by executing the following strategies:

	•		Expand our fleet through accretive acquisitions. We intend to acquire additional oil tankers in a manner that will increase our dividends on a per-share basis. As discussed above, Teekay Corporation has sold to us or agreed to offer or sell to us up to four existing Suezmax tankers at a price equal to their fair market value at the time of the offer, taking into account existing charters and based on independent ship broker valuations. Please read Item 5: “Operating Financial Review and Prospects Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Significant Developments in 2009.” We also anticipate growing our fleet through acquisitions of tankers from third parties and additional tankers that we expect Teekay Corporation to offer us from time to time. These acquisitions may include product tankers.
	•		Tactically manage our mix of spot and charter contracts. We employ a chartering strategy that seeks to capture upside opportunities in the spot market while using fixed-rate time charters to reduce downside risks. We believe that our Manager’s experience operating through cycles in the tanker spot market will assist us in employing this strategy and seeking to maximize our dividends on a per-share basis.

	•		Increase cash flow by participating in the Teekay Pool and the Gemini Pool. Through the participation of a significant number of our vessels in the Teekay Pool and the Gemini Pool, we believe that we benefit from Teekay Corporation’s reputation and the scope of Teekay Corporation’s operations. We believe that the cash flow we derive over time from operating some of our vessels in these pooling arrangements exceeds the amount we would otherwise derive by operating these vessels outside of the pooling arrangements due to higher vessel utilization and daily revenues.
	•		Provide superior customer service by maintaining high reliability, safety, environmental and quality standards. We believe that energy companies seek transportation partners that have a reputation for high reliability, safety, environmental and quality standards. We seek to leverage Teekay Corporation’s operational expertise and customer base to further expand these relationships with consistent delivery of superior customer service through our Manager.

Industry and Competition

We compete in the Aframax and Suezmax crude oil tanker market. Our competition in the Aframax (80,000 to 119,999 dwt) and Suezmax (120,000 to 199,999 dwt) markets is also affected by the availability of other size vessels that compete in our markets. Suezmax size vessels and Panamax (55,000 to 79,999 dwt) size vessels can compete for many of the same charters for which our Aframax tankers compete; Aframax size vessels and Very Large Crude Carriers (200,000 to 319,999 dwt) (or VLCCs) can compete for many of the same charters for which our Suezmax tankers may compete. Because of their large size, VLCCs and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (320,000+ dwt) (or ULCCs) rarely compete directly with Aframax tankers, and ULCCs rarely compete with Suezmax tankers for specific charters. However, because VLCCs and ULCCs comprise a substantial portion of the total capacity of the market, movements by such vessels into Suezmax trades and of Suezmax vessels into Aframax trades would heighten the already intense competition.

Seaborne transportation of crude oil and refined petroleum products are provided both by major energy companies (private as well as state-owned) and by independent ship owners. The desire of many major energy companies to outsource all or a portion of their shipping requirements has caused the number of conventional oil tankers owned by energy companies to decrease in the last 20 years. As a result of this trend, independent tanker companies now own or control a large majority of the international tanker fleet. As of December 31, 2009, the largest operators of Aframax tonnage (including newbuildings on order) included Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (approximately 63 vessels), Sovcomflot (approximately 41 vessels), Aframax International Pool (approximately 41 vessels) and the Sigma Pool (approximately 31 vessels). As of December 31, 2009, the largest operators of Suezmax tonnage (including newbuildings on order) included the Gemini Pool (36 vessels), Sovcomflot (approximately 21 vessels), the Blue Fin Pool (approximately 16 vessels), Delta Tankers (approximately 13 vessels) and the Stena Sonangol Pool (approximately 13 vessels).

Competition in the medium-sized crude tanker market is primarily based on price, location (for single-voyage or short-term charters), size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel, oil tanker shipping experience and quality of ship operations, and the size of an operating fleet, with larger fleets allowing for greater vessel substitution, availability and customer service. Aframax and Suezmax tankers are particularly well-suited for short-haul and medium-haul crude oil routes.

Historically, the tanker industry has been cyclical, experiencing volatility in profitability due to changes in oil tanker demand and oil tanker supply. The cyclical nature of the tanker industry causes significant increases or decreases in charter rates earned by operators of oil tankers. Because voyage charters occur in short intervals and are priced on a current, or “spot,” market rate, the spot market is more volatile than time charters and the tanker industry generally. In the past, there have been periods when spot rates declined below the operating cost of the vessels.

Oil Tanker Demand. Demand for oil tankers is a function of several factors, including world oil demand and supply (which affect the amount of crude oil and refined products transported in tankers), and the relative locations of oil production, refining and consumption (which affects the distance over which the oil or refined products are transported).

Oil has been one of the world’s primary energy sources for a number of decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil consumption will increase from 84.9 million barrels per day (or mb/d) in 2009 to 86.5 mb/d in 2010 as a result of the recovery in the global economy. A majority of known oil reserves are located in regions far from major consuming regions, which contributes positively towards demand for oil tankers.

The distance over which crude oil or refined petroleum products is transported is determined by seaborne trading and distribution patterns, which are principally influenced by the relative advantages of the various sources of production and locations of consumption. Seaborne trading patterns are also periodically influenced by geopolitical events, such as wars, hostilities and trade embargoes that divert tankers from normal trading patterns, as well as by inter-regional oil trading activity created by oil supply and demand imbalances. Historically, the level of oil exports from the Middle East has had a strong effect on the tanker market as a whole due to the relatively long distance between this supply source and typical discharge points. Over the past few years, the growing economies of China and India have increased and diversified their oil imports, resulting in an overall increase in transportation distance for tankers. Major consumers in Asia have increased their crude import volumes from longer-haul producers, such as those in the Atlantic Basin.

The limited growth in refinery capacity in developed nations, the largest consumers of oil in recent years, and increasing refinery capacity in the Middle East and parts of Asia where capacity surplus supports exports, have also altered traditional trading patterns and contributed to the overall increase in transportation distance for both crude tankers and products tankers.

Oil Tanker Supply. New Aframax and Suezmax tankers are generally expected to have a lifespan of approximately 25 to 30 years, based on estimated hull fatigue life. However, U.S. and international regulations require the earlier phase-out of existing vessels that are not double-hulled, regardless of their expected lifespan. As of December 31, 2009, the world Aframax crude tanker fleet consisted of 620 vessels, with an additional 108 Aframax crude oil tanker newbuildings on order for delivery through 2014, and the world Suezmax crude tanker fleet consisted of 358 vessels, with an additional 150 Suezmax crude oil tanker newbuildings on order for delivery through 2013. Currently, delivery of a vessel typically occurs within two to three years after ordering.

The supply of oil tankers is a function of new vessel deliveries, vessel scrapping and the conversion or loss of tonnage. The level of newbuilding orders is primarily a function of newbuilding prices in relation to current and prospective charter market conditions. Another factor that affects tanker supply is the available shipyard capacity. The level of vessel scrapping activity is primarily a function of scrapping prices in relation to current and prospective charter market conditions and operating, repair and survey costs. Industry regulations also affect scrapping levels. Please read “—Regulations” below. Demand for drybulk vessel and floating storage offtake units, to which tankers can be converted, strongly affects the number of tanker conversions.

Over the past decade, there has been a significant and ongoing shift toward quality in vessels and operations, as charterers and regulators increasingly focus on safety and protection of the environment. Since 1990, there has been an increasing emphasis on environmental protection through legislation and regulations such as OPA 90, International Maritime Organization (or IMO) regulations and protocols, and classification society procedures that demand higher quality tanker construction, maintenance, repair and operations. We believe that operators with proven ability to integrate these required safety regulations into their operations have a competitive advantage. The emergence of vessels equipped with double hulls has represented a differentiation in vessel quality and has enabled these vessels to command premium hire rates in the spot-charter markets. The effect has been a shift in major charterers’ preference towards greater use of double hulls.

Safety, Management of Ship Operations and Administration

Safety and environmental compliance are our top operational priorities. Our vessels are operated by our Manager in a manner intended to protect the safety and health of our employees, the general public and the environment. We and our Manager actively seek to manage the risks inherent in our business and are committed to eliminating incidents that threaten the safety and integrity of our vessels, such as groundings, fires, collisions and petroleum spills. In 2007, our Manager introduced a behavior-based safety program called “Safety in Action” to further enhance the safety culture in our fleet. We are also committed to reducing our emissions and waste generation. In 2008, our Manager introduced the Quality Assurance and Training Officers (or QATO) Program to conduct rigorous internal audits of our processes and provide our seafarers with onboard training.

Teekay Corporation, through certain of its subsidiaries, provides technical management services for all of our vessels. Teekay Corporation has obtained through Det Norske Veritas, the Norwegian classification society, approval of its safety management system as in compliance with the International Safety Management Code (or ISM Code), and this system has been implemented for all of our vessels. As part of Teekay Corporation’s ISM Code compliance, all of the vessels’ safety management certificates are maintained through ongoing internal audits performed by Teekay Corporation’s certified internal auditors and intermediate audits performed by Det Norske Veritas.

Our Manager provides, through certain of its subsidiaries, expertise in various functions critical to our operations and access to human resources, financial and other administrative functions. Critical ship management functions that our Manager provides to us through its affiliates include:

	•		vessel maintenance;
	•		crewing;
	•		purchasing;
	•		shipyard supervision;
	•		insurance; and
	•		financial management services.

These functions are supported by onboard and onshore systems for maintenance, inventory, purchasing and budget management. Please read Item 7: “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Management Agreement,” for more information about these arrangements.

In addition, Teekay Corporation’s day-to-day focus on cost control is applied to our operations. Teekay Corporation and two other shipping companies are participants in a purchasing alliance, Teekay Bergesen Worldwide, which leverages the purchasing power of the combined fleets, mainly in such commodity areas as lube oils, paints and other chemicals. Through our Manager, we benefit from this purchasing alliance.

Risk of Loss, Insurance and Risk Management

The operation of any ocean-going vessel carries an inherent risk of catastrophic marine disasters, death or injury of persons and property losses caused by adverse weather conditions, mechanical failures, human error, war, terrorism, piracy and other circumstances or events. The occurrence of any of these events may result in loss of revenues or increased costs.

We carry hull and machinery (marine and war risks) and protection and indemnity insurance coverage to protect against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business. Hull and machinery insurance covers loss of or damage to a vessel due to marine perils such as collisions, grounding and weather. Protection and indemnity insurance indemnifies against other liabilities incurred while operating vessels, including injury to the crew, third parties, cargo loss and pollution. The current available amount of our coverage for pollution is $1 billion per vessel per incident. Insurance policies also cover war risks (including piracy and terrorism). We do not carry insurance covering loss of revenues resulting from vessel off-hire time. We believe that our current insurance coverage is adequate to protect against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution coverage are maintained. However, we cannot assure that all covered risks are adequately insured against, that any particular claim will be paid or that adequate insurance coverage will be procured at commercially reasonable rates in the future. More stringent environmental regulations at times in the past have resulted in increased costs for, and may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against the risks of environmental damage or pollution. Insurance may be insufficient to cover losses that may occur to our vessels or result from our operations.

Our Manager uses in our operations Teekay Corporation’s thorough risk management program that includes, among other things, computer-aided risk analysis tools, maintenance and assessment programs, a seafarers competence training program, seafarers workshops and membership in emergency response organizations.

Teekay Corporation has achieved certification under the standards reflected in International Standards Organization’s (or ISO) 9001 for quality assurance, ISO 14001 for environment management systems, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Services 18001, and the IMO’s International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention on a fully integrated basis.

Classification, Audits and Inspections

The hull and machinery of all of our vessels have been “classed” by one of the major classification societies: Det Norske Veritas, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, or the American Bureau of Shipping. The classification society certifies that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of that classification society. Each vessel is inspected by a classification society surveyor annually, with either the second or third annual inspection being a more detailed survey (an Intermediate Survey) and the fifth annual inspection being the most comprehensive survey (a Special Survey). The inspection cycle resumes after each Special Survey. Vessels also may be required to be drydocked at each Intermediate and Special Survey for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel in addition to a more detailed inspection of hull and machinery. Many of our vessels have qualified with their respective classification societies for drydocking every four or five years in connection with the Special Survey and are no longer subject to drydocking at Intermediate Surveys. To qualify, we were required to enhance the resiliency of the underwater coatings of each vessel hull and to mark the hull to facilitate underwater inspections by divers.

The vessel’s flag state, or the vessel’s classification society if nominated by the flag state, also inspect our vessels to ensure they comply with applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the international conventions of which that country is a signatory. Port state authorities, such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, also inspect our vessels when they visit their ports. Many of our customers also regularly inspect our vessels as a condition to chartering.

Regulations

General

Our business and the operation of our vessels are significantly affected by international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations 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 or useful life of our vessels. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business and that may materially adversely affect our operations. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our operations. Subject to the discussion below and to the fact that the kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required for the operations of the vessels we own will depend on a number of factors, we believe that we will be able to continue to obtain all permits, licenses and certificates material to the conduct of our operations.

We believe that the heightened environmental and quality concerns of insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers will generally lead to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels in the oil tanker market and will accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout these markets.

Regulation—International Maritime Organization (or IMO). The IMO is the United Nations’ agency for maritime safety. IMO regulations relating to pollution prevention for oil tankers have been adopted by many of the jurisdictions in which our tanker fleet operates, but not by the United States. Under IMO regulations, an oil tanker must be of double-hull construction, be of mid-deck design with double-side construction or be of another approved design ensuring the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event that such tanker:

	•		is the subject of a contract for a major conversion or original construction on or after July 6, 1993;
	•		commences a major conversion or has its keel laid on or after January 6, 1994; or
	•		completes a major conversion or is a newbuilding delivered on or after July 6, 1996.

In December 2003, the IMO revised its regulations relating to the prevention of pollution from oil tankers. These regulations, which became effective in April 2005, accelerated the existing mandatory phase-out of single-hull tankers and impose a more rigorous inspection regime for older tankers. In July 2003, the European Union adopted legislation that prohibits all single-hull tankers from entering into its ports or offshore terminals under a phase-out schedule (depending upon age, type and cargo of tankers) between the years 2003 and 2010. All single-hull tankers will be banned April 2010. The European Union has already banned all single-hull tankers carrying heavy grades of oil from entering or leaving its ports or offshore terminals or anchoring in areas under its jurisdiction. Commencing in April 2005, certain single-hull tankers above 15 years of age were also restricted from entering or leaving EU ports or offshore terminals and anchoring in areas under EU jurisdiction. All of the tankers that we currently operate are double-hulled and are not affected directly by these IMO and EU regulations.

The European Union has also adopted legislation that bans manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as vessels that have been detained twice by EU port authorities after July 2003) from European waters, creates obligations on the part of EU member port states to inspect at least 24% of vessels using these ports annually, provides for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment and provides the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies. The European Union is also considering the adoption of criminal sanctions for certain pollution events, including tank cleaning.

IMO regulations also include the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (or SOLAS), including amendments to SOLAS implementing the International Security Code for Ports and Ships (or ISPS), the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (or ISM Code), the International Convention on Prevention of Pollution from Ships (the MARPOL Convention), the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966. SOLAS provides rules for the construction of and equipment required for commercial vessels and includes regulations for safe operation. Flag states that have ratified the IMO regulations generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

SOLAS and other IMO regulations concerning safety, including those relating to treaties on training of shipboard personnel, lifesaving appliances, radio equipment and the global maritime distress and safety system, are applicable to our operations. Non-compliance with IMO regulations, including SOLAS, the ISM Code, ISPS and other regulations, may subject us to increased liability or penalties, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to or detention in some ports. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports.

The ISM Code requires vessel operators to obtain a safety management certification for each vessel they manage, evidencing the shipowner’s compliance with requirements of the ISM Code relating to the development and maintenance of an extensive “Safety Management System.” Such a system includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Each of the existing vessels in our fleet currently is ISM Code-certified.

Environmental Regulations—United States Regulations. The United States has enacted an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including discharges of oil cargoes, bunker fuels or lubricants, primarily through OPA 90 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (or CERCLA). OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade to the United States or its territories or possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which include the U.S. territorial sea and 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the United States.

Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable without regard to fault (unless the 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. These other damages are defined broadly to include:

	•		natural resources damages and the related assessment costs;
	•		real and personal property damages;
	•		net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and other lost revenues;
	•		lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resources damage;
	•		net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards; and
	•		loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

OPA 90 limits the liability of responsible parties in an amount it periodically updates. These limits of liability would not apply if the incident is caused by violation of certain U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations, including IMO conventions to which the United States is a signatory, or by the responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the oil removal activities. In addition, CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil) whether on land or at sea, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA is also subject to limits, unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct, or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited. We currently maintain for each vessel pollution liability coverage in the maximum coverage amount of $1 billion per incident. A catastrophic spill could exceed the coverage available, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under OPA 90, with limited exceptions, all newly built or converted tankers delivered after January 1, 1994 and operating in U.S. waters must be built with double-hulls.

All of the tankers we currently operate are double-hulled. The United States Coast Guard (or Coast Guard) has implemented regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility in an amount equal to the applicable OPA limitation on liability plus the CERCLA liability limit of $300 per gross ton. Under the regulations, such evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance, guaranty or an alternate method subject to agency approval. Under OPA 90, an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet having the greatest maximum limited liability under OPA 90 and CERCLA.

The Coast Guard’s regulations concerning certificates of financial responsibility (or COFR) provide, in accordance with OPA 90, that claimants may bring suit directly against an insurer or guarantor that furnishes COFR. In addition, in the event that such insurer or guarantor is sued directly, it is prohibited from asserting any contractual defense that it may have had against the responsible party and is limited to asserting those defenses available to the responsible party and the defense that the incident was caused by the willful misconduct of the responsible party. Certain organizations, which had typically provided COFRs under pre-OPA 90 laws, including the major protection and indemnity organizations, have declined to furnish evidence of insurance for vessel owners and operators if they are subject to direct actions or required to waive insurance policy defenses.

The Coast Guard’s financial responsibility regulations may also be satisfied by evidence of surety bond, guaranty or by self-insurance. Under the self-insurance provisions, the shipowner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility. Teekay Corporation has complied with the Coast Guard regulations by obtaining financial guaranties from one of its subsidiaries covering our vessels. If other vessels in the fleet trade into the United States in the future, we expect that we will obtain additional guarantees from third-party insurers or to provide guarantees through self-insurance. Each of our vessels has a valid COFR.

OPA 90 and CERCLA permit individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil or hazardous substance pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited strict liability for spills. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

Owners or operators of tank vessels operating in United States waters are required to file vessel response plans with the Coast Guard, and their tank vessels are required to operate in compliance with their Coast Guard approved plans. Such response plans must, among other things:

	•		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”;
	•		describe crew training and drills; and
	•		identify a qualified individual with full authority to implement removal actions.

Teekay Corporation has filed vessel response plans with the Coast Guard for the vessels we own and has received approval of such plans for all vessels in our fleet to operate in U.S. waters. In addition, regular oil spill response drills are conducted in accordance with the guidelines set out in OPA 90. The Coast Guard has announced it intends to propose similar regulations requiring certain vessels to prepare response plans for the release of hazardous substances. OPA 90 allows U.S. state legislatures to pre-empt associated regulation if the state’s regulations are equal or more stringent. Several coastal states such as Alaska, California and Washington require state-specific COFR and vessel response plans.

OPA 90 and CERCLA do not preclude claimants from seeking damages resulting from the discharge of oil and hazardous substances under other applicable law, including maritime tort law. The application of this doctrine varies by jurisdiction.

Environmental Regulation—Other Environmental Initiatives

Although the United States is not a party, 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 (or CLC), and the Convention for the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution of 1971, as amended. Under these conventions, which are applicable to vessels that carry persistent oil as cargo, 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. Many of the countries that have ratified the CLC have increased the liability limits through a 1992 Protocol to the CLC and through a 2000 Protocol to the CLC which entered into force on November 1, 2003. The liability limits in the countries that have ratified the 2000 Protocol are currently approximately $6.9 million plus approximately $962 per gross registered tonne above 5,000 gross tonnes with an approximate maximum of $137⁽¹⁾ million per vessel, with the exact amount tied to a unit of account which varies according to a basket of currencies. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC when the spill is caused by the owner’s actual fault or privity and, under the 1992 Protocol, when the spill is caused by the owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to contracting states must provide evidence of insurance covering the limited 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 the CLC.

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (or Annex VI) to address air pollution from ships. Annex VI, which became effective in May 2005, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as halons, chlorofluorocarbons, emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks and prohibition of shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. We plan to operate our vessels in compliance with Annex VI. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could adversely affect our ability to manage our ships.

In addition, the IMO, various countries and states, such as Australia, the United States and the State of California, and various regulators, such as port authorities, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA), have either adopted legislation or regulations, or are separately considering the adoption of legislation or regulations, aimed at regulating the discharge of ballast water and the discharge of bunkers as potential pollutants (OPA 90 applies to discharges of bunkers or cargoes) and requiring the installation on ocean-going vessels of pollution prevention equipment such as oily water separators and bilge alarms.

The United States Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The Clean Water Act also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA 90 and CERCLA discussed above. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the EPA in the early 1970s, the discharge of sewage and effluent from properly functioning marine engines was exempted from the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. This exemption allowed vessels in U.S. ports to discharge certain substances, including ballast water, without obtaining a permit to do so. However, on March 30, 2005, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to certain environmental groups and U.S. states that had challenged the EPA regulations, arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority in promulgating them. On September 18, 2006, the U.S. District Court in that action issued an order invalidating the exemption in EPA’s regulations for all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as of September 30, 2008, and directing the EPA to develop a system for regulating all discharges from vessels by that date.

The EPA appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which on July 23, 2008, upheld the District Court’s decision. In response, the EPA adopted a new Clean Water Act permit titled the “Vessel General Permit.” Effective February 6, 2009, container vessels (including all vessels of the type operated by us) operating as a means of transportation that discharge ballast water or certain other incidental discharges into United States waters must obtain coverage under the Vessel General Permit and comply with a range of best management practices, reporting, inspections and other requirements. The Vessel General Permit also incorporates U.S. Coast Guard requirements for ballast water management and exchange and includes specific technology-based requirements for vessels, including oil and petroleum tankers. Under certain circumstances, the EPA may also require a discharger of ballast water or other incidental discharges to obtain an individual permit in lieu of coverage under the Vessel General Permit. These new requirements will increase the cost of operating our vessels in United States waters.

Since the EPA’s adoption of the Vessel General Permit, several U.S. states have added specific requirements to the permit through the Clean Water Act section 401 certification process (which varies from state to state) and, in some cases, require vessels to install ballast water treatment technology to meet biological performance standards.

Since January 2009, several environmental groups and industry associations have filed challenges in U.S. federal court to the EPA’s issuance of the Vessel General Permit. Several of these actions have been consolidated in the Washington D.C. Circuits courts, and have been subject to a stay that was recently extended to April 2, 2010.

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (or the Kyoto Protocol) entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the United States, entered into the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord is non-binding, but is intended to pave the way for a comprehensive, international treaty on climate change. The IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, which may include market-based instruments or a carbon tax. The European Union also has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels, and individual countries in the EU may impose additional requirements. In the United States, the EPA issued an “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this finding in itself does not impose any requirements on our industry, it authorizes the EPA to regulate directly greenhouse gas emissions through a rule-making process. In addition, climate change initiatives are being considered in the United States Congress and by individual states. Any passage of new climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the United States or other countries or states where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could have a significant financial and operational impact on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (or Annex VI) to address air pollution from ships. Annex VI, which became effective in May 2005, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as halons, chlorofluorocarbons, emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks and prohibition of shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. We plan to operate our vessels in compliance with Annex VI. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could adversely affect our ability to manage our ships.

In addition, the IMO, various countries and states, such as Australia, the United States and the State of California, and various regulators, such as port authorities, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA), have either adopted legislation or regulations, or are separately considering the adoption of legislation or regulations, aimed at regulating the discharge of ballast water and the discharge of bunkers as potential pollutants (OPA 90 applies to discharges of bunkers or cargoes) and requiring the installation on ocean-going vessels of pollution prevention equipment such as oily water separators and bilge alarms.

The EU Directive 33/2005 (or the Directive) came into force from January 1, 2010. Under this legislation, vessels are required to burn fuel with sulphur content below 0.1% while berthed or anchored in an EU port. Currently, the only grade of fuel meeting this low sulphur content requirement is low sulphur marine gas oil (or LSMGO). Certain modifications to certain vessels are necessary in order to optimize operation on LSMGO of equipment originally designed to operate on Heavy Fuel Oil (or HFO). The cost of such modifications will increase the capital expenditures of the relevant vessels in our fleet, which we estimate will total approximately $3.3 million. Furthermore, operating costs will increase as LSMGO is more expensive than HFO that is currently in use. Given that some equipment modification kits are not yet available, until recently, several industry associations and groups have appealed to the EU on the need for a grace period before the new regulations are enforced.

Vessel Security Regulation

The ISPS was adopted by the IMO in December 2002 in the wake of heightened concern over worldwide terrorism and became effective on July 1, 2004. The objective of ISPS is to enhance maritime security by detecting security threats to ships and ports and by requiring the development of security plans and other measures designed to prevent such threats. The United States implemented ISPS with the adoption of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (or MTSA), which requires vessels entering U.S. waters to obtain certification of plans to respond to emergency incidents there, including identification of persons authorized to implement the plans. Each of the existing vessels in our fleet currently complies with the requirements of ISPS and MTSA.

C. Organizational Structure

As of March 1, 2010, Teekay Corporation (NYSE: TK), through its 100%-owned subsidiary Teekay Holdings Ltd., had a 42% economic interest in us through its ownership of 1.0 million of our shares of Class A common stock and 12.5 million shares of our Class B common stock. Our shares of Class A common stock entitle the holders thereof to one vote per share and our shares of Class B common stock entitle the holders thereof to five votes per share, subject to a 49% aggregate Class B common stock voting power maximum. As such, we are controlled by Teekay Corporation. Teekay Corporation also controls its public subsidiaries Teekay LNG Partners L.P. (NYSE: TGP) and Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. (NYSE: TOO).

Please read Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report for a list of our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009.

D. Property, Plant and Equipment

We believe that our relatively new, well-maintained and high-quality vessels provide us with a competitive advantage in the current environment of increasing regulation and customer emphasis on quality of service.

Our vessels are also regularly inspected by our seafaring staff, who perform much of the necessary routine maintenance. Shore-based operational and technical specialists also inspect our vessels at least twice a year. Upon completion of each inspection, action plans are developed to address any items requiring improvement. All action plans are monitored until they are completed. The objectives of these inspections are to:

	•		ensure adherence to our operating standards;
	•		maintain the structural integrity of the vessel;
	•		maintain machinery and equipment to give full reliability in service;
	•		optimize performance in terms of speed and fuel consumption; and
	•		ensure the vessel’s appearance will support our Teekay Corporation’s reputation and meet customer expectations.

To achieve the vessel’s structural integrity objective, our Manager uses a comprehensive “Structural Integrity Management System” developed by Teekay Corporation. This system is designed to closely monitor the condition of our vessels and to ensure that structural strength and integrity are maintained throughout a vessel’s life.

Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property.

E. Taxation of the Company

The following discussion is a summary of the principal United States and Marshall Islands tax laws applicable to us. The following discussion of tax matters, as well as the conclusions regarding certain issues of tax law that are reflected in such discussion, are based on current law. No assurance can be given that changes in or interpretation of existing laws will not occur or will not be retroactive or that anticipated future factual matters and circumstances will in fact occur. Our views have no binding effect or official status of any kind, and no assurance can be given that the conclusions discussed below would be sustained if challenged by taxing authorities.

1. United States Taxation

The following discussion is based upon the provisions of the Code existing and proposed U.S. Treasury Department regulations, administrative rulings, pronouncements and judicial decisions, all as of the date of this Annual Report.

Taxation as a Corporation. We will be taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As such, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our income to the extent it is from U.S. sources or otherwise is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States as discussed below.

Taxation of Operating Income. We expect that substantially all of our gross income will be attributable to the transportation of crude oil and related products. For this purpose, gross income attributable to transportation (or Transportation Income) includes income derived from, or in connection with, the use (or hiring or leasing for use) of a vessel to transport cargo, or the performance of services directly related to the use of any vessel to transport cargo, and thus includes both time charter or bareboat charter income.

Transportation Income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be considered to be 50.0% derived from sources within the United States (or U.S. Source International Transportation Income). Transportation Income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States will be considered to be 100.0% derived from sources within the United States (or U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income). Transportation Income attributable to transportation exclusively between non-U.S. destinations will be considered to be 100% derived from sources outside the United States. Transportation Income derived from sources outside the United States generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

The Section 883 Exemption. In general, the Section 883 Exemption provides that if a non-U.S. corporation satisfies the requirements of Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder (or the Section 883 Regulations), it will not be subject to the net basis and branch taxes or 4.0% gross basis tax described below on its U.S. Source International Transportation Income. The Section 883 Exemption only applies to U.S. Source International Transportation Income. As discussed below, we believe that under our current ownership structure, the Section 883 Exemption will apply and we will not be taxed on our U.S. Source International Transportation Income. The Section 883 Exemption does not apply to U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income.

A non-U.S. corporation will qualify for the Section 883 Exemption if, among other things, it is organized in a jurisdiction outside the United States that grants an equivalent exemption from tax to corporations organized in the United States (or an Equivalent Exemption), it meets one of three ownership tests (or the Ownership Test) described in the Final Section 883 Regulations, and it meets certain substantiation, reporting and other requirements.

We are organized under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The U.S. Treasury Department has recognized the Republic of the Marshall Islands as a jurisdiction that grants an Equivalent Exemption. Consequently, our U.S. Source International Transportation Income (including for this purpose, any such income earned by our subsidiaries that have properly elected to be treated as partnerships or disregarded as entities separate from us for U.S. federal income tax purposes) will be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation provided we satisfy the Ownership Test described in the Section 883 Regulations. We believe that we should satisfy the Ownership Test because our stock is primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market in the United States within the meaning of Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. We can give no assurance, however, that changes in the ownership of our stock subsequent to the date of this report will permit us to continue to qualify for the Section 883 exemption.

The Net Basis Tax and Branch Profits Tax. If we earn U.S. Source International Transportation Income and the Section 883 Exemption does not apply, such income may be treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States (or Effectively Connected Income) if we have a fixed place of business in the United States and substantially all of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or, in the case of income derived from bareboat charters, is attributable to a fixed placed of business in the United States. Based on our current operations, none of our potential U.S. Source International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or is derived from bareboat charters. As a result, we do not anticipate that any of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income will be treated as Effectively Connected Income. However, there is no assurance that we will not earn income pursuant to regularly scheduled transportation or bareboat charters attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States in the future, which would result in such income being treated as Effectively Connected Income.

U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income generally will be treated as Effectively Connected Income. However, we do not anticipate that any of our income has or will be U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income.

Any income we earn that is treated as Effectively Connected Income would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (the highest statutory rate currently is 35.0%). In addition, if we earn income that is treated as Effectively Connected Income, a 30.0% branch profits tax imposed under Section 884 of the Code generally would apply to such income, and a branch interest tax could be imposed on certain interest paid or deemed paid by us.

On the sale of a vessel that has produced Effectively Connected Income, we could be subject to the net basis corporate income tax and to the 30.0% branch profits tax with respect to our gain not in excess of certain prior deductions for depreciation that reduced Effectively Connected Income. Otherwise, we would not be subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to gain realized on the sale of a vessel, provided the sale is considered to occur outside of the United States under U.S. federal income tax principles.

The 4.0% Gross Basis Tax. If the Section 883 Exemption does not apply and the net basis tax does not apply, we would be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax on the U.S. source portion of our gross U.S. Source International Transportation Income, without benefit of deductions.

2. Marshall Islands Taxation

We believe that neither we nor our subsidiaries will be subject to taxation under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands, and that distributions by our subsidiaries to us will not be subject to Marshall Islands taxation.

Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

General

We were formed by Teekay Corporation (Teekay) in October 2007 and completed our initial public offering in December 2007. Our business is to own oil tankers and we employ a chartering strategy that seeks to capture upside opportunities in the tanker spot market while using fixed-rate time charters to reduce downside risks. Historically, the tanker industry has experienced volatility in profitability due to changes in the supply of, and demand for, tanker capacity. Tanker supply and demand are each influenced by several factors beyond our control. As at March 1, 2010, we owned nine Aframax tankers and three Suezmax tankers. As of March 1, 2010, five of our Aframax tankers and two of our Suezmax tankers operated under fixed-rate time-charter contracts with our customers, of which two charter contracts are scheduled to expire in 2010, four in 2011, and one in 2012. One of the Aframax fixed-rate time-charter contracts which expires in 2010 is with Teekay. The two fixed-rate contracts for the Suezmax tankers include a component providing for additional revenues to us beyond the fixed hire rate when spot market rates exceed threshold amounts and one expires in 2011 and the other in 2012. Our remaining four Aframax tankers and one Suezmax tanker currently participate in an Aframax pooling arrangement and a Suezmax pooling arrangement, respectively, each managed by subsidiaries of Teekay. As of March 1, 2010, these pooling arrangements included 19 Aframax tankers and 42 Suezmax tankers, respectively. Our mix of vessels trading in the spot market or subject to fixed-rate time charters will change from time to time.

We distribute to our stockholders on a quarterly basis all of our Cash Available for Distribution, subject to any reserves the board of directors may from time to time determine are required for the prudent conduct of our business. Cash Available for Distribution represents our net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, unrealized losses from derivatives, non-cash items and any write-offs or other non-recurring items less unrealized gains from derivatives and net income attributable to the historical results of vessels acquired by us from Teekay, prior to their acquisition by us, for the period when these vessels were owned and operated by Teekay.

In connection with our initial public offering, Teekay contributed to us nine wholly owned subsidiaries, each of which owns one Aframax tanker. These transfers represented a reorganization of entities under common control and have been recorded at historical cost. Prior to these transfers to us, Teekay transferred seven of the nine tankers to seven new ship-owning subsidiaries. The accounts of the remaining two wholly owned subsidiaries and any other transactions specifically attributable to the nine vessels that, prior to the public offering, were incurred in Teekay or any of its other subsidiaries that were not transferred to us are collectively referred to as Teekay Tankers Predecessor or the Predecessor.

Significant Developments in 2009 and 2010

On June 24, 2009, we completed a follow-on public offering of 7.0 million Class A common shares at a price of $9.80 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $68.6 million. We used the net offering proceeds of $65.6 million to acquire the 2003-built Suezmax tanker, the Ashkini Spirit, from Teekay for $57.0 million. The net proceeds from the offering in excess of the purchase price of the Ashkini Spirit were used to repay a portion of our outstanding debt under its revolving credit facility. In addition, as part of the acquisition of the Ashkini Spirit, the undrawn availability under the revolving credit facility increased by a further $58.0 million.

In connection with our initial public offering in December 2007, Teekay agreed to offer to us the right to purchase from it up to four existing Suezmax oil tankers. In April 2008, we acquired two Suezmax tankers, the Ganges Spirit and the Narmada Spirit, pursuant to this commitment and in June 2009, we completed the acquisition of the third Suezmax tanker, the Ashkini Spirit, as described above. Teekay has agreed to offer to us, prior to June 18, 2010, the right to purchase the fourth Suezmax tanker. The purchase price for any of these four Suezmax tankers is the vessel’s fair market value at the time of offer, taking into account any existing charter contracts and based on independent ship broker valuations. We also anticipate additional opportunities to expand our fleet through acquisitions of tankers from third parties and additional tankers that we expect Teekay will offer to us from time to time. These tankers may include crude oil and product tankers.

The acquisition of the three Suezmax tankers was accounted for as a transfer of a business between entities under common control. The transfer of net assets between entities under common control are accounted for as if the transfer occurred from the date that we and the acquired vessels were both under the common control of Teekay and had begun operations. The financial results for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the financial results of the three Suezmax tankers for the periods under common control of Teekay prior to acquisition of the vessels by us, and such results for such period are collectively referred to as the Dropdown Predecessor.

In late March 2010, the Company executed an agreement to sell one of its Aframax vessels that is trading in the Teekay Aframax Pool for approximately $17.0 million, its approximate book value. This transaction is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2010.

Our Charters

We generate revenues by charging customers for the transportation of their crude oil using our vessels. Historically, these services generally have been provided under the following basic types of contractual relationships:

	•		Voyage charters participating in pooling arrangements, are charters for shorter intervals that are priced on a current or “spot” market rate then adjusted for pool participation based on predetermined criteria; and
	•		Time charters, whereby vessels are chartered to customers for a fixed period of time at rates that are generally fixed, but may contain a variable component based on inflation, interest rates or current market rates.

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

		Voyage Charter		Time Charter
Typical contract length		Single voyage		One year or more
Hire rate basis (1)		Varies		Daily
Voyage expenses (2)		We pay		Customer pays
Vessel operating expenses (3)		We pay		We pay
Off-hire (4)		Customer does not pay		Customer does not pay

Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts

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

Voyage Revenues. Voyage revenues primarily include revenues from time charters, voyage charters and pool arrangements. Voyage revenues are affected by hire rates and the number of days a vessel operates. Voyage revenues are also affected by the mix of business between time charters, voyage charters and vessels operating in pool arrangements. Hire rates for voyage charters are more volatile, as they are typically tied to prevailing market rates at the time of a voyage.

Voyage Expenses. Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and commissions. Voyage expenses are typically paid by the ship owner under voyage charters and the customer under time charters.

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

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

Income from Vessel Operations. To assist us in evaluating our operations, we analyze the income we receive after deducting operating expenses, but prior to the deduction of interest expense, income taxes, foreign currency exchange gains and losses and other income and losses.

Drydocking. We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for inspection, repairs and maintenance and any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements. Generally, we drydock each of our vessels every 2.5 to five years, depending upon the type of vessel and its age. We capitalize a substantial portion of the costs incurred during drydocking and amortize those costs on a straight-line basis from the completion of a drydocking to the estimated completion of the next drydocking. We expense, as incurred, costs for routine repairs and maintenance performed during drydocking that do not improve or extend the useful lives of the assets. The number of drydockings undertaken in a given period and the nature of the work performed determine the level of drydocking expenditures.

Depreciation and Amortization. Our depreciation and amortization expense typically consists of:

	•		charges related to the depreciation of the historical cost of our fleet (less an estimated residual value) over the estimated useful lives of our vessels; and
	•		charges related to the amortization of drydocking expenditures over the estimated number of years to the next scheduled drydocking.

Time Charter Equivalent (TCE) Rates. Bulk shipping industry freight rates are commonly measured in the shipping industry at the net voyage revenues level in terms of “time charter equivalent” (or TCE) rates, which represent net voyage revenues, excluding pool management fees, divided by revenue days.

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

Average Number of Ships. Historical average number of ships consists of the average number of vessels that were in our possession during a period. We use average number of ships primarily to highlight changes in vessel operating expenses and depreciation and amortization.

Items You Should Consider When Evaluating Our Results

You should consider the following factors when evaluating our historical financial performance and assessing our future prospects:

	•		Our financial results reflect the results of the interests in vessels acquired from Teekay Corporation for all periods the vessels were under common control. To date, we have acquired three Suezmax tankers (the Ganges Spirit, the Narmada Spirit and the Ashkini Spirit) from Teekay. These acquisitions were deemed to be business acquisitions between entities under common control. Accordingly, we have accounted for these transactions in a manner similar to the pooling of interest method. Under this method of accounting our financial statements, for periods prior to the date the interests in these vessels were actually acquired by us, are recast to include the results of these acquired vessels. The periods recast include all periods that we and the acquired vessels were both under common control of Teekay and had begun operations. As a result, our statements of income for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 reflect the financial results of the three Suezmax tankers for the periods under common control of Teekay prior to the acquisition of the vessels by us, and such results for such periods are collectively referred to as the Dropdown Predecessor.
	•		Our voyage revenues are affected by cyclicality in the tanker markets. The cyclical nature of the tanker industry causes significant increases or decreases in the revenue we earn from our vessels, particularly those we trade in the spot market. This affects the amount of dividends, if any, we pay on our common stock from period to period.
	•		Tanker rates also fluctuate based on seasonal variations in demand. Tanker markets are typically stronger in the winter months as a result of 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 increased refinery maintenance. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns during the winter months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling, which historically has increased oil price volatility and oil trading activities in the winter months. As a result, revenues generated by our vessels have historically been weaker during the quarters ended June 30 and September 30, and stronger in the quarters ended December 31 and March 31.

	•		Our general and administrative expenses are affected by our Management Agreement and costs we incur from being a public company. In December 2007, we entered into the long-term Management Agreement with our Manager, Teekay Tankers Management Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Teekay. Under this agreement, our Manager provides to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services. We pay a market-based fee for these services. Prior to our initial public offering, our general and administrative expenses reflect an allocation of general and administrative expenses from Teekay. The annual expenses we have incurred after our initial public offering under the Management Agreement for commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services generally have been lower than our general and administrative expenses for comparable periods prior to our initial public offering. However, we may incur additional general and administrative expenses as a result of our Manager being entitled to a performance fee under the Management Agreement under certain circumstances. Please read Note 10(d) to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report. In addition, since our initial public offering we have been incurring additional general and administrative expenses as a result of being a publicly traded company, including costs associated with annual reports to stockholders and SEC filings, investor relations, The New York Stock Exchange annual listing fees and tax compliance expenses.
	•		Our vessel operating expenses are facing industry-wide cost pressures. The oil shipping industry is experiencing a global manpower shortage due to growth in the world fleet. This shortage resulted in significant crew wage increases during 2007, 2008, and to a lesser degree in 2009. We expect the trend of significant crew compensation increases to abate in the short term. However, this could change if market conditions adjust. In addition, factors such as pressure on raw material prices and changes in regulatory requirements could also increase operating expenditures. We have taken various measures throughout 2009 in an effort to reduce costs, improve operational efficiencies, and mitigate the impact of inflation and price increases and will continue this effort during 2010.
	•		The amount and timing of drydockings of our vessels can significantly affect our revenues between periods. Our vessels are normally offhire when they are being drydocked. Four and three of our vessels were drydocked during 2009 and 2008, respectively. The total number of days of offhire relating to drydocking during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was 149 days and 201 days, respectively. For our existing fleet, there are four drydockings scheduled in 2010 and no drydockings are scheduled in 2011.

Results of Operations

In accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principals (or GAAP), we report gross voyage revenues in our income statements and include voyage expenses among our operating expenses. However, shipowners base economic decisions regarding the deployment of their vessels upon anticipated “time charter equivalent” (or TCE) rates, and industry analysts typically measure bulk shipping freight rates in terms of TCE rates. There are two reasons for this. First, under time charters the customer usually pays the voyage expenses, while under voyage charters the shipowner usually pays the voyage expenses. Second, the revenues and voyage expenses of our vessels that operate in pool arrangements are pooled with the voyage revenues and voyage expenses of other pool participants. The resulting net pool revenues, calculated on the time charter equivalent basis, are allocated to the pool participants according to an agreed formula. We account for the net allocation from the pool as voyage revenues. Accordingly, the discussion of revenue below focuses on net voyage revenues (or voyage revenues less voyage expenses) and TCE rates where applicable.

Year Ended December 31, 2009 versus Year Ended December 31, 2008

The following table presents our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and compares net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, for those periods to voyage revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure.

		Year Ended December 31,
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except percentages)		2009				2008				% Change
Voyage revenues		$	113,303			$	163,327				(30.6	)
Voyage expenses			3,106				2,359				31.7
Net voyage revenues			110,197				160,968				(31.5	)
Vessel operating expenses			33,221				33,896				(2.0	)
Depreciation and amortization			28,660				27,655				3.6
General and administrative			6,694				8,734				(23.4	)
Income from vessel operations			41,622				90,683				(54.1	)
Interest expense			(7,012	)			(16,908	)			(58.5	)
Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap			4,310				(16,232	)			(126.6	)
Interest income			70				475				(85.3	)
Other (expense) Income — net			(56	)			49				(214.3	)
Net Income		$	38,934			$	58,067				(32.9	)

Tanker Market

Demand for conventional oil tankers is a function of several factors, including: world oil demand and supply (which affect the amount of crude oil and refined products transported in tankers); the relative locations of oil production, refining and consumption (which affect the distance over which the oil or refined products are transported); and the supply of tankers.

Spot tanker rates declined to multi-year lows during 2009 due to the combined effects of lower global oil demand as a result of the global economic downturn, a reduction in global supply due to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (or OPEC) production cutbacks and an increase in tanker fleet supply. The removal of tankers from the fleet for use as floating storage and the implementation of slow steaming provided some support during the year and prevented rates from declining further. Spot tanker rates recovered during the fourth quarter due to a seasonal increase in global oil demand and supply as well as severe winter weather-related vessel delays in the northern hemisphere.

During 2009, the global economy shrank for the first time since World War II after a series of shocks to the world’s financial markets in the second half of 2008 paved the way for a deep global recession. According to the International Monetary Fund (or IMF) global gross domestic product (or GDP) shrank by 0.8% in 2009 compared to growth of 3.0% in the previous year. GDP in the advanced economies shrank by 3.2% while growth in emerging market and developing economies slowed to 2.1%. The severe downturn in the global economy led to a decrease in global oil demand for the second consecutive year, the first time this has happened since the early 1980s. According to the International Energy Agency (or IEA), global oil demand contracted by 1.2 million barrels per day (mb/d), or 1.4% in 2009 following a decline of 0.3 mb/d in the previous year. Global oil supply declined by 1.5 mb/d in 2009 as OPEC cut back production in response to shrinking oil demand and lower crude oil prices.

The outlook for 2010 is more positive with the IMF forecasting global GDP growth of 3.9% as the world starts to recover from the recession. The advanced economies are expected to grow by 2.1% in 2010, while emerging market and developing economies are expected to grow by 6.0%. The IEA estimates that global oil demand will grow by 1.6 mb/d or 1.8% in 2010 taking global oil demand back to the pre-recession levels of 2007. All of the growth is expected to come from non-OECD countries led by Asia and in particular China where oil demand is expected to grow by 0.5 mb/d. Non-OPEC supply is expected to increase by a modest 0.3 mb/d while OPEC natural gas liquids (or NGL) production is expected to grow by 0.8 mb/d. The net result of increasing demand and slower growth in non-OPEC / OPEC NGL supply is an expected increase in the “call on OPEC” crude of 0.4 mb/d in 2010.

Spot tanker rates had remained strong during the first few weeks of 2010 largely due to severe winter weather conditions in the Northern Hemisphere, which led to increased oil demand and caused weather-related delays. Subsequently, spot tanker rates softened in late January and February due to easing seasonal factors and an increase in available fleet capacity as a result of a reduction in global floating storage volumes. Crude tanker rates remained volatile during March 2010 as a result of certain short term market dislocations which suggests that the underlying tanker supply / demand balance may be tighter than what some estimates suggest.

The world tanker fleet expanded to approximately 436 million deadweight (or mdwt) as of December 31, 2009, an increase of 30 mdwt or 7.3% from the end of 2008. This is an increase from the previous year when the tanker fleet grew by 22 mdwt or 5.6%. A total of 48 mdwt of new tankers were delivered into the fleet during 2009, a record amount for a calendar year (the previous record was 46 mdwt in 1975). However, the final delivery total was around 25% lower than the planned delivery schedule at the start of the year as construction delays and newbuilding cancellations led to a higher level of orderbook slippage than in previous years. Tanker removals increased to 19 mdwt in 2009 compared to 15 mdwt in 2008 due to an increase in scrapping ahead of the International Maritime Organization (or IMO) mandated phase-out of single hull tankers which comes into effect in 2010. Approximately 64.5 mdwt of tankers are due to deliver in 2010; however, tanker fleet growth is expected to be dampened by continued orderbook slippage due to construction delays and order cancellations as well as increased scrapping due to single hull tanker phase-out regulations. There are currently approximately 53 mdwt (or 12% of the exisiting fleet) non double hull tankers in the world tanker fleet and these units are finding it more and more difficult to trade (from a commercial and regulatory point of view).

Fleet and TCE Rates

In accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principals (or GAAP), we report gross voyage revenues in our income statements and include voyage expenses among our operating expenses. However, shipowners base economic decisions regarding the deployment of their vessels upon anticipated “time charter equivalent” (or TCE) rates, and industry analysts typically measure bulk shipping freight rates in terms of TCE rates. There are two reasons for this. First, under time charters the customer usually pays the voyage expenses, while under voyage charters the shipowner usually pays the voyage expenses. Second, the revenues and voyage expenses of our vessels that operate in pool arrangements are pooled with the voyage revenues and voyage expenses of other pool participants. The resulting net pool revenues, calculated on a TCE basis, are allocated to the pool participants according to an agreed formula. We account for the net allocation from the pool as voyage revenues. Accordingly, the discussion of revenue below focuses on net voyage revenues (or voyage revenues less voyage expenses) and TCE rates where applicable.

The following table presents our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and compares net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, for those periods to voyage revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure.

The acquisition of the Suezmax vessel, the Ashkini Spirit, in 2009 increased the number of vessels in our fleet to twelve compared to eleven in 2008. However, the financial results of the Dropdown Predecessor relating to this vessel has been included, for accounting purposes, in our results as if it were acquired on August 1, 2007, when it was acquired and began operations as a conventional tanker for Teekay Corporation. Please read Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

The following table outlines the average TCE rates earned by vessels for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:

		Year Ended December 31, 2009												Year Ended December 31, 2008
		Net								Average				Net								Average
		Voyage								TCE per				Voyage								TCE per
		Revenues (1)				Revenue				Revenue				Revenues (2)				Revenue				Revenue
		(in thousands)				Days				Day (1)				(in thousands)				Days				Day (2)
Voyage-charter contracts — Aframax		$	21,099				1,212			$	17,415			$	63,256				1,546			$	40,911
Voyage-charter contracts — Suezmax			19,781				724				27,309				38,656				675				57,299
Time-charter contracts — Aframax			58,425				1,882				31,040				50,997				1,604				31,788
Time-charter contracts — Suezmax			15,108				368				41,054				12,400				365				33,946
Total		$	114,413				4,186			$	27,332			$	165,309				4,190			$	39,453

Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues decreased to $110.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $161.0 million for 2008, primarily due to:

	•		a decrease of $49.7 million from a decrease in average TCE rates earned by our Aframax vessels operating on spot-market-based voyage charters;
	•		a decrease of $10.4 million from a decrease in average TCE rates earned by our Suezmax vessels operating on spot-market-based voyage charters;
	•		a decrease of $5.4 million resulting from the extensions of existing time-charters for the Everest Spirit and Nassau Spirit during 2009; and
	•		a decrease of $1.6 million resulting from the Matterhorn Spirit time-charter expiring and the vessel resuming spot-market-based voyage charter employment at lower rates;

partially offset by

	•		an increase of $15.5 million resulting from the employment of the Kareela Spirit and Kyeema Spirit on time-charters instead of voyage-charter in 2009; and
	•		an increase of $2.7 million relating to the Ganges Spirit profit-sharing amount recognized in 2009 over the $1.0 million recognized in 2008.

Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses decreased to $33.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $33.9 million for 2008, primarily due to a reduction in repair and maintenance expenses in 2009 compared to 2008.

Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased to $28.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $27.7 million for 2008, primarily due to the additional amortization of drydocking expense relating to the four drydockings in 2009 compared to three drydockings in 2008.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses were $6.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $8.7 million for 2008. The decrease in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to:

	•		no performance fee expense was incurred in 2009 compared to $1.4 million of performance fees that were recognized for the year ended December 31, 2008; and
	•		a decrease of $1.1 million in general and administrative expenses relating to the Dropdown Predecessor in 2009 compared to 2008;

partially offset by

•

an increase of $0.4 million in corporate expenses incurred during 2009 compared with 2008.

Interest Expense. Interest expense was $7.0 million and $16.9 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. The change in interest expense was primarily due to a decrease of $5.3 million relating to the Dropdown Predecessor in 2009 compared to 2008 and a lower debt balance outstanding resulting from annual loan repayments of $3.6 million and loan prepayments of $20.0 million made on our revolving credit facility and a decrease in interest rates on the outstanding loan balance in 2009 compared to 2008.

Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap. We have not designated, for accounting purposes, our interest rate swap as a cash flow hedge of our U.S. Dollar LIBOR-denominated borrowings, and as such, the realized and unrealized changes in the fair value of the swap are reflected in a separate line item in our consolidated statements of income. The change in the fair value of the interest rate swap resulted in an unrealized gain of $9.0 million and a realized loss of $4.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to unrealized and realized losses of $14.2 million and $2.0 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Net Income. As a result of the foregoing factors, net income was $38.9 million and $58.1 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.

Year Ended December 31, 2008 versus Year Ended December 31, 2007

The following table presents our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and compares net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, for those periods to voyage revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure.

		Year Ended December 31,
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except percentages)		2008				2007				% Change
Voyage revenues		$	163,327			$	160,706				1.6
Voyage expenses			2,359				47,447				(95.0	)
Net voyage revenues			160,968				113,259				42.1
Vessel operating expenses			33,896				24,287				39.6
Depreciation and amortization			27,655				21,055				31.3
General and administrative			8,734				14,537				(39.9	)
Income from vessel operations			90,683				53,380				69.9
Interest expense			(16,908	)			(13,467	)			25.6
Realized and unrealized (loss) gain on interest rate swap			(16,232	)			—				100.0
Interest income			475				—				—
Other income (expense) — net			49				(8	)			(712.5	)
Net Income		$	58,067			$	39,905				45.5

Tanker Market

Demand for conventional oil tankers is a function of several factors, including: world oil demand and supply (which affect the amount of crude oil and refined products transported in tankers); the relative locations of oil production, refining and consumption (which affects the distance over which the oil or refined products are transported); and the supply of tankers.

Average crude tanker freight rates rose in 2008 to the highest level since 1990 driven by counter-seasonally high rates in the second and third quarters of the year. The strength in crude tanker rates was primarily driven by an increase in long-haul oil movements between the Atlantic and Pacific basins as well as record high OPEC crude output levels for most of the year. In addition, short-term factors, such as hurricane related port delays and labor strikes in the Mediterranean and Iran that resulted in the use of up to 20 VLCCs and Suezmax tankers as floating storage, helped tighten tanker supply and drive up rates during the summer months. Tanker fleet growth was dampened through much of 2008 by the effect of vessels being removed from the fleet for conversion to dry bulk and offshore units and scrapping. Crude tanker rates eased in the fourth quarter of 2008 as OPEC started to implement production cutbacks in response to weakening oil demand as a result of the downturn in the global economy.

Growth in the global economy slowed during 2008, particularly in the second half of the year after a series of shocks to global financial markets. The IMF reported that world gross domestic product growth averaged 3.2% in 2008, down from 5.2% in 2007, with growth averaging just 1.0% in 2008 in OECD countries. The slowdown in global economic growth affected global oil demand, which contracted by 0.3 mb/d (or 0.3%) according to the IEA. Oil demand in the OECD fell by 1.7 mb/d in 2008 while non-OECD demand grew by 1.4 mb/d led by China, Asia and the Middle East. Global oil supply rose by 0.8 mb/d in 2008 compared to 2007, driven by higher OPEC output as a result of record high crude oil prices for much of 2008.

The world tanker fleet rose to 407.4 million dwt as of December 31, 2008, up 21.8 million dwt (or 5.7%) from the end of 2007. Tanker fleet growth was dampened for much of 2008 by increased scrapping and the removal of vessels for conversion to other ship types, particularly dry bulk vessels. Tanker scrap prices rose to a record high of around $750 per lightweight tonne (ldt) in mid-2008. In total, 14.7 mdwt of tankers were removed from the fleet during 2008, the highest level of tanker removals since 2003.

Fleet and TCE Rates

The following table presents our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, and compares net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, for those periods to voyage revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure.

The acquisition of the three Suezmax vessels, the Ashkini Spirit in 2009 and the Ganges Spirit and Narmada Spirit in 2008, increased the number of vessels in our fleet in 2008 to twelve compared to nine in 2007 as a result of accounting for the Dropdown Predecessor. The financial results of the Dropdown Predecessor relating to these vessels have been included, for accounting purposes, in our results as if they were acquired on August 1, 2007, when they were acquired and began operations as conventional tankers for Teekay Corporation. Please read Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

The following table outlines the average TCE rates earned by vessels for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007:

		Year Ended December 31, 2008												Year Ended December 31, 2007
		Net								Average				Net
		Voyage								TCE per				Voyage								Average TCE
		Revenues (1)				Revenue				Revenue				Revenues				Revenue				per Revenue
		(in thousands)				Days				Day (1)				(in thousands)				Days				Day (2)
Voyage-charter contracts — Aframax		$	63,256				1,546			$	40,911			$	65,775				2,168			$	30,378
Voyage-charter contracts — Suezmax			38,656				675				57,299				9,782				275				35,572
Time-charter contracts — Aframax			50,997				1,604				31,788				33,180				1,088				30,516
Time-charter contracts — Suezmax			12,400				365				33,946				4,638				153				30,313
Total		$	165,309				4,190			$	39,453			$	113,375				3,684			$	30,775

Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues increased to $161.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to $113.3 million for 2007, primarily due to:

•

an increase of $22.8 million and $6.0 million from an increase in average TCE rates earned by our Aframax and Suezmax vessels, respectively, operating on spot-market-based voyage charters;

	•		an increase of $16.4 million from an increased number of revenue days from employment of our Aframax time-charter fleet;
	•		an increase of $7.2 million due to the additional revenue days the Dropdown Predecessor operated in 2008 compared to partial year in 2007; and
	•		an increase of $1.0 million due to the recognition of the Ganges Spirit profit-sharing amount recognized in 2008 compared to no profit-share amount in 2007;

partially offset by

	•		a decrease of $3.7 million due to 92 offhire days in 2008 from the scheduled drydocking of the Nassau Spirit, which was completed in June 2008;
	•		a decrease of $1.2 million due to 29 offhire days in 2008 for vessel repairs to the Sotra Spirit, with the majority of the repairs completed in July and November, 2008; and
	•		a decrease of $0.9 million due to 19 offhire days for the scheduled drydocking of the Narmada Spirit, which was completed in October 2008.

Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses increased to $33.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to $24.3 million for 2007, primarily due to:

	•		an increase of $5.9 million due to the inclusion of the financial results of the Dropdown Predecessor in 2008 over 2007;
	•		an increase of $3.9 million from increased crewing costs;
	•		an increase of $1.0 million from an increase in maintenance activities;

partially offset by

•

a decrease of $1.4 million in crewing costs for the Nassau Spirit. In connection with the re-flagging of this vessel from Canada to the Bahamas in August 2006, we changed the crew on the Nassau Spirit from Canadian crew to international crew.

Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased to $27.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to $21.1 million for 2007, primarily due to:

•

an increase of $7.9 million due to the inclusion of the Dropdown Predecessor;

partially offset by

•

a decrease of $2.2 million due to an increase in the estimated residual value of our vessels for accounting purposes, which was primarily driven by increases in steel prices.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses were $8.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to $14.5 million for 2007. The change in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to:

	•		a net decrease of $6.5 million from our entering into the Management Agreement with our Manager in December 2007; and
	•		a decrease of $0.5 million due to the inclusion of the financial results of the Dropdown Predecessor; and

partially offset by:

•

an increase of $1.7 million in corporate expenses incurred during 2008 compared with 2007.

Interest Expense. Interest expense was $16.9 million and $13.5 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007. The change in interest expense was primarily due to:

•

an increase $4.6 million due to the average outstanding balance of revolving credit facilities during 2008 compared to 2007

partially offset by

•

a decrease of $1.0 million due to the inclusion of the financial results of the Dropdown Predecessor in 2008 over 2007.

Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap. We have not designated, for accounting purposes, our interest rate swap as a cash flow hedge of our U.S. Dollar LIBOR-denominated borrowings, and as such, the realized and unrealized changes in the fair value of the swap are reflected in a separate line item in our consolidated statements of income. The change in the fair value of the interest rate swap resulted in unrealized and realized losses of $14.2 million and $2.0 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2008 and no unrealized and realized gains and losses for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Net Income. As a result of the foregoing factors, net income increased to $58.1 million for 2008, from $39.9 million for 2007.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Liquidity and Cash Needs

Our short-term liquidity requirements are for the payment of operating expenses, drydocking expenditures, debt servicing costs, dividends on our shares of common stock, scheduled repayments of long-term debt, as well as funding our other working capital requirements. As at December 31, 2009, our total cash and cash equivalents was $10.4 million. Our total liquidity, including cash and undrawn credit facilities, was $134.1 million as at December 31, 2009, compared to $72.4 million as at December 31, 2008. The increase in liquidity was primarily due to the $58.0 million increase in the undrawn availability under the revolving credit facility as a result of the acquisition of the Ashkini Spirit in June 2009. We believe that our working capital is sufficient for our present requirements.

Our spot market operations contribute to the volatility of our net operating cash flow, and thus our ability to generate sufficient cash flows to meet our short-term liquidity needs. Historically, the tanker industry has been cyclical, experiencing volatility in profitability and asset values resulting from changes in the supply of, and demand for, vessel capacity. In addition, tanker spot markets historically have exhibited seasonal variations in charter rates. Tanker spot markets are typically stronger in the winter months as a result of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere and unpredictable weather patterns that tend to disrupt vessel scheduling.

Our long-term capital needs are primarily for capital expenditures and debt repayment. Generally, we expect that our long-term sources of funds will be cash balances, cash from operations, long-term bank borrowings and other debt or equity financings. Because we expect to pay a variable quarterly dividend equal to our Cash Available for Distribution during the previous quarter (subject to any reserves our board of directors may from time to time determine are required for the prudent conduct of business), we expect that we will rely upon external financing sources, including bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures, including opportunities we may pursue to purchase additional vessels from Teekay or third parties. On June 24, 2009, we completed a follow-on public offering of 7.0 million shares of our Class A common stock at $9.80 per share, the net proceeds of which we used to purchase the Ashkini Spirit from Teekay and to repay a portion of our outstanding debt under our revolving credit facility.

As at December 31, 2009, our revolving credit facility provided for borrowings of up to $401.0 million, of which $123.7 million was undrawn. The amount available under this revolving credit facility decreases by $22.1 million semi-annually commencing in December 2012 and the credit facility matures in 2017. Borrowings under this facility bear interest at LIBOR plus a margin and may be prepaid at any time in amounts of not less than $5.0 million. The acquisitions of two of our Aframax tankers were financed with a term loan which bears interest at a rate of 4.06%. As of December 31, 2009, the balance of this term loan was $27.9 million. The loan requires $0.9 million in quarterly principal payments. Please read Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

As of March 1, 2010, our vessel financings were collateralized by all of our vessels. The term loan used to finance two of our Aframax tankers and our revolving credit facility contain covenants and other restrictions that we believe are typical of debt financing collateralized by vessels, including those that restrict the relevant subsidiaries from:

	•		incurring or guaranteeing additional indebtedness;
	•		making certain negative pledges or granting certain liens; and
	•		selling, transferring, assigning or conveying assets.

In addition, our revolving credit facility contains covenants that require us to maintain a minimum liquidity (i.e., cash, cash equivalents and undrawn committed revolving credit lines with more than six months to maturity) of a minimum of $35.0 million and at least 5.0% of our total debt. As at March 1, 2010, we were in compliance with all of our covenants under our credit facilities.

If we breach covenants or restrictions in our financing agreements, we may be prohibited from paying dividends on our common stock and, subject to any applicable cure periods, our lenders may be entitled to:

	•		declare our obligations under the agreements immediately due and payable and terminate any further loan commitments; and
	•		foreclose on any of our vessels or other assets securing the related loans.

In the future, some of the covenants and restrictions in our financing agreements could restrict the use of cash generated by ship-owning subsidiaries in a manner that could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends on our common stock. However, we currently do not expect that these covenants will have such an effect.

We are exposed to market risk from changes in interest rates, foreign currency fluctuations and spot market rates. We use one interest rate swap to manage interest rate risk. We do not use this financial instrument for trading or speculative purposes. Please read Item 11: “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

As described under “Item 4—Information on the Company: Regulations—Environmental Regulation—Other Environmental Initiatives,” passage of any climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could have a significant financial and operational impact on our business, which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Such regulatory measures could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. In addition, increased regulation of greenhouse gases may, in the long term, lead to reduced demand for oil and reduced demand for our services.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our sources and uses of cash for the periods presented:

		2009				2008
		(in thousands)				(in thousands)
Net cash flow from operating activities		$	74,097			$	97,726
Net cash flow used in financing activities			(86,532	)			(101,058	)
Net cash flow used in investing activities			(3,831	)			(4,809	)

Operating Cash Flows

Net cash flow from operating activities decreased to $74.1 million in 2009, from $97.7 million in 2008, primarily due to a decrease in average spot tanker market rates, drydocking expenditures, working capital advances to the managers of the pooling arrangements in which some of our vessels participate, and the timing of our cash receipts and payments. Net cash flow from operating activities primarily depends upon the timing and amount of drydocking expenditures, repairs and maintenance activity, vessel additions and dispositions, changes in interest rates, fluctuations in working capital balances and spot market tanker rates. The number of vessel drydockings tends to vary between periods. In 2009, four of our vessels were drydocked compared to three vessels in 2008.

Financing Cash Flows

Net cash outflow from financing activities decreased to $86.5 million in 2009 from $101.1 million in 2008, primarily due to the net proceeds of our follow-on equity offering, reduced dividend payments and reduced prepayments of long-term debt of the Dropdown Predecessor in 2009 compared with 2008. During the second quarter of 2009, we raised net proceeds of $65.6 million from our follow-on offering of 7.0 million shares of Class A common stock which was partially offset by the purchase of the Ashkini Spirit for $57.0 million. The excess of proceeds over the purchase price of the Suezmax tanker was used to prepay a portion of the principal on our revolver. Net cash outflow from financing activities also decreased in 2009 over 2008 as a result of a reduction in cash dividends paid during 2009 compared to 2008. Dividends paid by us during the year ended December 31, 2009 were $50.4 million or $1.86 per share, compared to $69.6 million or $2.79 per share for the year ended December 31, 2008. We intend to distribute on a quarterly basis all of our Cash Available for Distribution, subject to any reserves established by our board of directors. In 2008, we also prepaid long-term debt relating to the Dropdown Predecessor in the amount of $129.4 million compared to $13.3 million in 2009. In connection with the acquisition of the Dropdown Predecessor, our statements of cash flows were retroactively adjusted to include the cash flows of the Dropdown Predecessor for the period from August 1, 2007 through June 24, 2009.

During the year ended December 31, 2009 we repaid $3.6 million, as scheduled, of our term loan, and prepaid $20.0 million of indebtedness under our revolving credit facility. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we repaid $3.6 million of our term loan, and prepaid $15.0 million of indebtedness under our revolving credit facility.

Investing Cash Flows

During 2009 and 2008 we incurred $3.8 million and $4.8 million respectively, of vessel upgrade and equipment expenditures.

Commitments and Contingencies

The following table summarizes our long-term contractual obligations as at December 31, 2009:

										2011				2013
										and				and				Beyond
(in millions of U.S. dollars)		Total				2010				2012				2014				2014
U.S. Dollar-Denominated Obligations:
Long-term debt (1)			305.2				3.6				7.2				7.2				287.2
Technical vessel management and administrative fees			48.9				3.8				7.5				7.5				30.1
Total			354.1				7.4				14.7				14.7				317.3

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

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

Critical Accounting Estimates

We prepare our financial statements in accordance with GAAP, which require us to make estimates in the application of our accounting policies based on our best assumptions, judgments and opinions. On a regular basis, management reviews the accounting policies, assumptions, estimates and judgments to ensure that our consolidated financial statements are presented fairly and in accordance with GAAP. However, because future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty, actual results could differ from our assumptions and estimates, and such differences could be material. Accounting estimates and assumptions discussed in this section are those that we consider to be the most critical to an understanding of our financial statements because they inherently involve significant judgments and uncertainties. For a further description of our material accounting policies, please read Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

Revenue Recognition

Description. Within the shipping industry, the two methods used to account for revenues and expenses are the percentage of completion and the completed voyage methods. Most shipping companies, including us, use the percentage of completion method. For each method, voyages may be calculated on either a load-to-load or discharge-to-discharge basis. In other words, revenues are recognized ratably either from the beginning of when product is loaded for one voyage to when it is loaded for another voyage, or from when product is discharged (unloaded) at the end of one voyage to when it is discharged after the next voyage. We recognize revenues from time charters daily over the term of the charter as the applicable vessel operates under the charter. We do not recognize revenues during days that a vessel is off-hire.

Judgments and Uncertainties. In applying the percentage of completion method, we believe that in most cases the discharge-to-discharge basis of calculating voyages more accurately reflects voyage results than the load-to-load basis. At the time of cargo discharge, we generally have information about the next load port and expected discharge port, whereas at the time of loading we are normally less certain what the next load port will be. We use this method of revenue recognition for all spot voyages. However we do not begin recognizing revenue for any of our vessels until a charter has been agreed to by the customer and us, even if the vessel has discharged its cargo and is sailing to the anticipated load port on its next voyage.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If actual results are not consistent with our estimates in applying the percentage of completion method, our revenues could be overstated or understated for any given period by the amount of such difference.

Vessel Lives and Impairment

Description. The carrying value of each of our vessels represents its original cost at the time of delivery or purchase less depreciation or impairment charges. We depreciate our vessels on a straight-line basis over a vessel’s estimated useful life, less an estimated residual value. The carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time since the market prices of second-hand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of newbuildings. Both charter rates and newbuilding costs tend to be cyclical in nature. We review vessels and equipment for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. We measure the recoverability of an asset by comparing its carrying amount to future undiscounted cash flows that the asset is expected to generate over its remaining useful life.

Judgments and Uncertainties. Depreciation is calculated using an estimated useful life of 25 years for Aframax and Suezmax tankers, from the date the vessel was originally delivered from the shipyard. In the shipping industry, the use of a 25-year vessel life for Aframax and Suezmax tankers has become the prevailing standard. However, the actual life of a vessel may be different, with a shorter life resulting in an increase in the quarterly depreciation and potentially resulting in an impairment loss. The estimates and assumptions regarding expected cash flows require considerable judgment and are based upon existing contracts, historical experience, financial forecasts and industry trends and conditions.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If we consider a vessel or equipment to be impaired, we recognize impairment in an amount equal to the excess of the carrying value of the asset over its fair market value. The new lower cost basis will result in a lower annual depreciation than before the vessel impairment.

Drydocking

Description. We capitalize a substantial portion of the costs we incur during drydocking and amortize those costs on a straight-line basis from the completion of a drydocking to the estimated completion of the next drydocking. We immediately expense costs for routine repairs and maintenance performed during drydocking that do not improve or extend the useful lives of the assets.

Judgments and Uncertainties. Amortization of capitalized drydock expenditures requires us to estimate the period of the next drydocking. While we typically drydock each vessel every two and one-half to five years, we may drydock the vessels at an earlier date.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If we change our estimate of the next drydock date we will adjust our annual amortization of drydocking expenditures.

Expenses

Description. The combined carve-out financial statements of Teekay Tankers Predecessor reflect all of the expenses that Teekay Corporation incurred on our behalf prior to our initial public offering in December 2007. These expenses, which have been allocated from Teekay Corporation, include general and administrative expenses, interest expense and income tax expenses. We believe that we have used a reasonable method of allocating these common expenses to Teekay Tankers Predecessor. However, such estimates may not reflect actual results.

General and administrative expenses of the Teekay Tankers Predecessor were not identifiable as relating solely to the vessels. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other employee-related costs, office rent, legal and professional fees and travel and entertainment. For periods prior to our initial public offering, general and administrative expenses of Teekay Corporation were apportioned to Teekay Corporation’s spot tanker segment and fixed-rate tanker segment (which included, among other vessels, Teekay Tankers Predecessor’s nine vessels) based on estimated use of corporate resources. The resulting amounts were partially allocated to Teekay Tankers Predecessor based on its proportionate share of the total ship-operating (calendar) days of Teekay Corporation’s spot tanker and fixed-rate tanker segments for the applicable period.

For each of the periods presented prior to our initial public offering, interest expense includes the allocation of interest to Teekay Tankers Predecessor from Teekay Corporation and its subsidiaries based upon the weighted-average outstanding balance of applicable intercompany loans and the weighted-average interest rate outstanding on Teekay Corporation’s loan facilities that were used to finance these intercompany loans.

Judgments and Uncertainties. The allocation methodologies described above are based on judgment as to the most appropriate way to allocate common expenses.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If actual results are not consistent with our estimates of these expenses, our general and administrative expenses, interest expense and income tax expense could be overstated or understated for any given period by the amount of such difference.

Valuation of Derivative Instruments

Description. Our risk management policies permit the use of derivative financial instruments to manage interest rate risk. Changes in fair value of derivative financial instruments that are not designated as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes are recognized in earnings.

Judgments and Uncertainties. The fair value of our interest rate swap agreement is the estimated amount that we would receive or pay to terminate the agreement at the reporting date, taking into account current interest rates and estimates of the current credit worthiness of both us and the swap counterparty. The estimated amount is the present value of future cash flows. The process of determining credit worthiness is highly subjective and requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If our estimates of fair value are inaccurate, this could result in a material adjustment to the carrying amount of derivative asset or liability and consequently the change in fair value for the applicable period that would have been recognized in earnings.

Goodwill

Description. We allocate the cost of acquired companies to the identifiable tangible and intangible assets and liabilities acquired, with the remaining amount being classified as goodwill. Our future operating performance will be affected by the potential impairment charges related to goodwill. Accordingly, the allocation of purchase price to goodwill may significantly affect our future operating results. Goodwill is not amortized, but reviewed for impairment annually, or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. The process of evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill is highly subjective and requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis.

Judgments and Uncertainties. The allocation of the purchase price of acquired companies requires management to make significant estimates and assumptions, including estimates of future cash flows expected to be generated by the acquired assets and the appropriate discount rate to value these cash flows. In addition, the process of evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill and intangible assets is highly subjective and requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis. The fair value of our reporting unit with goodwill was estimated based on discounted expected future cash flows using a weighted-average cost of capital rate. The estimates and assumptions regarding expected cash flows and the appropriate discount rates require considerable judgment and are based upon existing contracts, historical experience, financial forecasts and industry trends and conditions.

Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. As of December 31, 2009, we had one reporting unit with $6.8 million of goodwill attributable to it. The fair value of this reporting unit exceeds its carrying value by approximately $180 million at December 31, 2009. As of the date of this filing, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the goodwill attributable to this reporting unit might be impaired within the next year. However, certain factors that impact this assessment are inherently difficult to forecast and as such we cannot provide any assurances that an impairment will or will not occur in the future. Such factors that could negatively impact the fair value of the reporting unit include fluctuations in discount rates, weaker tanker markets and fleet growth assumptions not being realized. An assessment for impairment involves a number of assumptions and estimates that are based on factors that are beyond our control. These are discussed in more detail in the “Forward-Looking Statement” Discussion on page four of this document.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2009, we adopted an amendment to Financial Accounting Standards Board (or FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (or ASC) 805, Business Combinations. This amendment requires an acquirer to recognize the assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date, measured at their fair values as of that date. This amendment also requires the acquirer in a business combination achieved in stages to recognize the identifiable assets and liabilities, as well as the non-controlling interest in the acquiree, at the full fair values of the assets and liabilities as if they had occurred on the acquisition date. In addition, this amendment requires that all acquisition related costs be expensed as incurred, rather than capitalized as part of the purchase price, and those restructuring costs that an acquirer expected, but was not obligated to incur, be recognized separately from the business combination. The amendment applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. The adoption of this amendment did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 820 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). Non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities include all assets and liabilities other than those meeting the definition of a financial asset or financial liability. The adoption of this amendment did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. See Note 8 of the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

In January 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 815 Derivatives and Hedging, which requires expanded disclosures about a company’s derivative instruments and hedging activities, including increased qualitative, and credit-risk disclosures. See Note 7 of the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

In January 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 350, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other, which amends the factors that should be considered in developing assumptions relating to renewal or extension provisions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset. The adoption of the amendment did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 323, Investments-Equity Method and Joint Ventures, which addresses the accounting for the acquisition of equity method investments, for changes in value and changes in ownership levels. The adoption of this amendment did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

In April 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 825, Financial Instruments, which requires disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments to be disclosed on a quarterly basis and that disclosures provide qualitative and quantitative information on fair value estimates for all financial instruments not measured on the balance sheet at fair value, when practicable, with the exception of certain financial instruments.

In April 2009, we adopted an amendment to FASB ASC 855, Subsequent Events, which established general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. This amendment is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. The adoption of this amendment did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements. See Note 15 of the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

In June 2009, the FASB issued the FASB ASC effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. The ASC identifies the source of GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission (or SEC) under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. On the effective date, the ASC superseded all then-existing non-SEC accounting and reporting standards. All other non-grandfathered non-SEC accounting literature not included in the ASC will become non-authoritative. The adoption of the ASC on July 1, 2009 and incorporated it in our notes to the consolidated financial statements.

In August 2009, the FASB issued an amendment to FASB ASC 820 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures that clarifies the fair value measurement requirements for liabilities that lack a quoted price in an active market and provides clarifying guidance regarding the consideration of restrictions when estimating the fair value of a liability. This amendment was effective for us on October 1, 2009. The adoption of this ASC did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees

Our board of directors and executive officers oversee and supervise our operations. Subject to this oversight and supervision, our operations are managed generally by our Manager. Upon the closing of our initial public offering, we entered into (a) the long-term Management Agreement pursuant to which our Manager and its affiliates provide to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services, (b) a revenue sharing pool agreement with Teekay Corporation and Teekay Chartering Limited, a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation, pursuant to which Teekay Chartering Limited commercially manages the Teekay Pool by providing chartering and marketing services for all participating tankers, and (c) a revenue sharing pool agreement with Teekay Corporation, Gemini Tankers, a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation, and other third party vessel owners, pursuant to which Gemini Tankers commercially manages the Gemini Pool by providing chartering and marketing services for all participating tankers. Please read Item 7: “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions,” for descriptions of these agreements.

Our Chief Executive Officer, Bjorn Moller, our Executive Vice President, Peter Evensen, and our Chief Financial Officer, Vincent Lok, allocate their time between managing our business and affairs, directly as such officers and indirectly as officers of our Manager, and the business and affairs of Teekay Corporation, for which they also serve as the Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively. The amount of time Messrs. Moller, Evensen and Lok allocate among our business and the businesses of Teekay Corporation, our Manager and other subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation varies from time to time depending on various circumstances and needs of the businesses, such as the relative levels of strategic activities of the businesses.

Our officers and individuals providing services to us or our subsidiaries may face a conflict regarding the allocation of their time between our business and the other business interests of Teekay Corporation or its affiliates. We intend to seek to cause our officers to devote as much time to the management of our business and affairs as is necessary for the proper conduct thereof.

Directors and Executive Officers of Teekay Tankers Ltd.

The following table provides information about the directors and executive officers of Teekay Tankers Ltd. Directors are elected for one-year terms. The business address of each of our directors and officers listed below is c/o 4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08 Bermuda. Ages of the directors are as of December 31, 2009.

Name		Age				Position
C. Sean Day			60			Chairman of the Board of Directors (1)
Bjorn Moller			52			Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vincent Lok			41			Chief Financial Officer
Peter Evensen			51			Executive Vice President and Director
Richard J.F. Bronks			44			Director (2)
Richard T. du Moulin			63			Director (2)
William Lawes			66			Director (2)

Certain biographical information about each of these individuals is set forth below:

C. Sean Day has served as Chairman of the Board of Teekay Tankers Ltd. since it was formed in October 2007 and also serves as Chairman of our Manager. Mr. Day has also served as Chairman of the Board for Teekay Corporation since September 1999, Teekay GP L.L.C. (the general partner of Teekay LNG Partners L.P., a publicly held partnership controlled by Teekay Corporation) since it was formed in November 2004, and Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C. (the general partner of Teekay LNG Partners L.P., a publicly held partnership controlled by Teekay Corporation) since it was formed in August 2006. From 1989 to 1999, Mr. Day was President and Chief Executive Officer of Navios Corporation, a large bulk shipping company based in Stamford, Connecticut. Prior to this, Mr. Day held a number of senior management positions in the shipping and finance industry. He is currently serving as a Director of Kirby Corporation, and as Chairman of Compass Diversified Holdings. Mr. Day is engaged as a consultant to Kattegat Limited, the parent company of Teekay’s largest shareholder, to oversee its investment including that in the Teekay group of companies.

Bjorn Moller was appointed as Teekay Tankers’ Chief Executive Officer and Director in October 2007 and also serves in those same capacities for our Manager. Since April 1998, Mr. Moller has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation. He also serves as Vice Chairman and Director of each of Teekay GP L.L.C. and Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C. Mr. Moller has over 25 years experience in the shipping industry, and has served as Chairman of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation since 2006 and on the Board of the American Petroleum Institute since 2000. He has held senior management positions with Teekay for more than 15 years, and has led Teekay’s overall operations since January 1997, following his promotion to the position of Chief Operating Officer. Prior to this, Mr. Moller headed Teekay’s global chartering operations and business development activities.

Vincent Lok was appointed as our Chief Financial Officer in October 2007. Mr. Lok has served as Teekay Corporation’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since July 2007. He has held a number of finance and accounting positions with Teekay Corporation, including Controller from 1997 until his promotions to the positions of Vice President, Finance in March 2002 and Senior Vice President and Treasurer in February 2004. He was subsequently appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in November 2006. Mr. Lok also serves as the Chief Financial Officer of our Manager. Prior to joining Teekay Corporation, Mr. Lok worked in the Vancouver, Canada, audit practice of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

Peter Evensen was appointed Executive Vice President and a Director of Teekay Tankers Ltd. in October 2007 and serves in those same capacities for our Manager. He has also served as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and director of Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C. Mr. Evensen also holds the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer of Teekay Corporation. He joined Teekay Corporation in May 2003 as Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. He was appointed to his current positions with Teekay Corporation in February 2004. Mr. Evensen has over 25 years experience in banking and shipping finance. Prior to joining Teekay Corporation, Mr. Evensen was Managing Director and Head of Global Shipping at J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., and worked in other senior positions for its predecessor firms. His international industry experience includes positions in New York, London and Oslo.

Richard J.F. Bronks joined the Board of Directors of Teekay Tankers Ltd. in January 2008. Mr. Bronks retired from Goldman Sachs, where he held a number of positions during his career. From 2004 until March 2007, Mr. Bronks was responsible for building Goldman Sachs’ equity, bond and loan financing business in emerging markets, including Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, the Former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Turkey and Africa. From 1999 to 2004, Mr. Bronks served as a co-head of Goldman’s global commodity business, engaged in the trading of commodities and commodity derivatives, and the shipping and storage of physical commodities. From 1993 to 1999, Mr. Bronks served as a member of Goldman’s oil derivatives business in London and New York. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Mr. Bronks was employed by BP Oil International, in both its oil derivatives business and its crude oil trading business.

Richard T. du Moulin joined the Board of Directors in December 2007. Mr. du Moulin is currently the President of Intrepid Shipping LLC, a position he has held since he founded Intrepid Shipping in 2002. From 1998 to 2002, Mr. du Moulin served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marine Transport Corporation. Mr. du Moulin is a member of the Board of Trustees and Vice Chairman of the Seamens Church Institute of New York and New Jersey. Mr. du Moulin currently serves as a Director of Tidewater Inc. and is on the board of Globe Wireless LLC. Mr. du Moulin served as Chairman of Intertanko, the leading trade organization for the tanker industry, from 1996 to 1999.

William Lawes joined the Board of Directors of Teekay Tankers Ltd. in January 2008. Mr. Lawes served as a Managing Director and a member of the Europe, Africa and Middle East Regional Senior Management Board of JPMorgan Chase and its predecessor banks based in London from 1987 until 2002. His functional responsibility was Chief Credit and Counterparty Risk Officer for the region. Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase, he was Global Head of Shipping Finance at Grindlays Bank. Mr. Lawes is qualified as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Since March 2005, Mr. Lawes has served as a Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of Diana Shipping Inc., a global provider of shipping transportation services. He is also a trustee and Chairman of the Finance and Audit Committee of Care International — UK, a global humanitarian charity.

Directors and Executive Officers of Our Manager

The following table provides information about the directors and executive officers of our Manager. As noted above, our Manager and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries provide to us commercial, technical, administrative and strategic services pursuant to the Management Agreement. Our Manager was formed, and its directors and executive officers were appointed, in October 2007. Ages of these individuals are as of December 31, 2009.

Name		Age				Position
C. Sean Day			60			Chairman of the Board of Directors
Bjorn Moller			52			Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vincent Lok			41			Chief Financial Officer
Peter Evensen			51			Executive Vice President and Director