Table of Contents


United States
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
(Mark One)
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
OR
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from              to             
Commission file number 1-37966
SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
Delaware
 
47-2564547
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 
7910 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Houma, Louisiana
 
70360
(Address of Principal Executive Office)
 
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (985) 876-5400
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class
 
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
 
New York Stock Exchange
 
 
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o  Yes    ý  No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ¨  Yes    ý  No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or 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. ý  Yes    ¨  No
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). ý  Yes    ¨  No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer  o
 
Accelerated filer  o
 
Non-accelerated filer  x
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
 
Smaller reporting company  o

 
Emerging growth company  x

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). ¨  Yes    ý  No
The aggregate market value of the voting stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2017 was approximately $332,370,118 based on the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange on such date. The total number of shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding as of March 20, 2018 was 17,683,356.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s last fiscal year is incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



Table of Contents

SEACOR MARINE HOLDINGS INC.
FORM 10-K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
 
PART I
 
 
 
 
Item 1.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Item 1A.
 
 
 
Item 1B.
 
 
 
Item 2.
 
 
 
Item 3.
 
 
 
Item 4.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART II
 
 
 
 
Item 5.
 
 
 
Item 6.
 
 
 
Item 7.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

i

Table of Contents

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Item 7A.
 
 
 
Item 8.
 
 
 
Item 9.
 
 
 
Item 9A.
 
 
 
Item 9B.
 
 
 
 
PART III
 
 
 
 
Item 10.
 
 
 
Item 11.
 
 
 
Item 12.
 
 
 
Item 13.
 
 
 
Item 14.
 
 
 
 
PART IV
 
 
 
 
Item 15.

ii

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements discussed in Item 1. (Business), Item 1A. (Risk Factors), Item 3. (Legal Proceedings), Item 7. (Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations), Item 7A. (Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk) and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as in other materials and oral statements that the Company releases from time to time to the public constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements concern management’s expectations, strategic objectives, business prospects, anticipated economic performance and financial condition and other similar matters and involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements discussed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Certain of these risks, uncertainties and other important factors are discussed in Item 1A. (Risk Factors) and Item 7. (Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations). However, it should be understood that it is not possible to identify or predict all such risks, uncertainties and factors, and others may arise from time to time. All of these forward-looking statements constitute the Company’s cautionary statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “believe,” “plan,” “target,” “forecast” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of the document in which they are made. The Company disclaims any obligation or undertaking to provide any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which the forward-looking statement is based. It is advisable, however, to consult any further disclosures the Company makes on related subjects in its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
PART I
ITEM 1.    BUSINESS
General
Unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms “we,” “our,” “ours,” “us,” “its” and the “Company” refer to SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. “SEACOR Marine” refers to SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc., incorporated in 2014 in Delaware, without its subsidiaries. “Common Stock” refers to the common stock, par value $.01 per share, of SEACOR Marine. The Company’s fiscal year ends on December 31 of each year.
SEACOR Marine’s principal executive office is located at 7910 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Houma, Louisiana 70360, and its telephone number is (985) 876-5400. SEACOR Marine’s website address is www.seacormarine.com. Any reference to SEACOR Marine’s website is not intended to incorporate the information on the website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
The Company’s corporate governance documents, including the Board of Directors’ Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee charters are available, free of charge, on SEACOR Marine’s website or in print for stockholders.
All of the Company’s periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Section 13(a), 14 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available, free of charge, on SEACOR Marine’s website, including its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statements and any amendments to those reports. These reports and amendments are available on SEACOR Marine’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files the reports or amendments with the SEC. They are also available at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Information as to the operation of the SEC’s Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains these reports, proxy and information statements and other information.
Recent Developments
The Spin-off. SEACOR Marine was previously a subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. (along with its consolidated subsidiaries, other than SEACOR Marine, collectively referred to as “SEACOR Holdings”). On June 1, 2017, SEACOR Holdings completed a spin-off of SEACOR Marine by way of a pro rata dividend of SEACOR Marine’s Common Stock, all of which was then held by SEACOR Holdings, to SEACOR Holdings’ shareholders of record as of May 22, 2017 (the “Spin-off”). SEACOR Marine entered into certain agreements with SEACOR Holdings to govern SEACOR Marine’s relationship with SEACOR Holdings following the Spin-off, including a Distribution Agreement, two Transition Services Agreements, an Employee Matters Agreement and a Tax Matters Agreement. Immediately following the Spin-off, SEACOR Marine began to operate as an independent, publicly traded company.

1

Table of Contents

SEACOSCO. On January 17, 2018, the Company announced the formation of SEACOSCO Offshore LLC (“SEACOSCO”), a Marshall Islands entity jointly owned by the Company and affiliates of COSCO SHIPPING GROUP (“COSCO SHIPPING”), the world’s largest ship owner. SEACOSCO entered into contracts for the purchase of eight Rolls-Royce designed, new construction platform supply vessels (“PSVs”) from COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY (GUANGDONG) CO., LTD (the “Shipyard”, an affiliate of COSCO SHIPPING) for approximately $161.1 million, of which 70% will be financed by the Shipyard, and secured by the PSVs on a non-recourse basis to the Company. SEACOSCO will take title to seven of the PSVs in 2018 and one in 2019. Thereafter, the Shipyard, at its cost, will store the PSVs at its facility for periods ranging from six to 18 months. The Company’s total committed investment for construction and working capital requirements is approximately $27.5 million for an unconsolidated 50% interest in SEACOSCO, with approximately $20.0 million payable in the first quarter of 2018 and the remaining balance due over the next 14 months as the vessels and the equipment are delivered. The Company will be responsible for full commercial, operational, and technical management of the vessels on a worldwide basis.
MOI Joint Venture. On February 9, 2018, the Company announced that the formation and capitalization of a joint venture between a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and Montco Offshore, LLC (“MOI”) was consummated on February 8, 2018. In connection therewith and MOI’s plan of reorganization, which was confirmed on January 18, 2018, MOI emerged from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. In accordance with the terms of a Joint Venture Contribution and Formation Agreement, the Company and MOI contributed certain liftboat vessels and other related assets to Falcon Global Holdings LLC (“FGH”) and its designated subsidiaries, and FGH and its designated subsidiaries assumed certain operating liabilities and indebtedness associated with the liftboat vessels and related assets. The transaction consolidates the fifteen liftboat vessels operated by the Company and six liftboat vessels previously operated by MOI. On February 8, 2018, Falcon Global USA LLC (“FGUSA”), a wholly owned subsidiary of FGH, paid $15.0 million of MOI’s debtor-in-possession obligations and entered into a $131.1 million credit agreement comprised of a $116.1 million term loan and a $15.0 million revolving loan facility (the “FGUSA Credit Facility”). The full amount of the term loan and other amounts paid by affiliates of MOI satisfied in full the amounts outstanding under MOI’s pre-petition credit facilities. The FGUSA Credit Facility, apart from a guarantee of certain interest payments and participation fees for two years after the closing of the transactions, is non-recourse to SEACOR Marine and its subsidiaries other than FGUSA. The Company will consolidate FGH as the Company holds approximately 72% of the equity interest in FGH and is entitled to appoint a majority of the board of managers of FGH. Immediately following the capitalization of FGH, the Company borrowed $5.0 million under the revolving loan facility for working capital purposes.
Business
The Company provides global marine and support transportation services to offshore oil and natural gas exploration, development and production facilities worldwide. The Company and its joint ventures operate a diverse fleet of offshore support and specialty vessels that (i) deliver cargo and personnel to offshore installations, (ii) handle anchors and mooring equipment required to tether rigs to the seabed, (iii) tow rigs and assist in placing them on location and moving them between regions, (iv) provide construction, well work-over and decommissioning support and (v) carry and launch equipment used underwater in drilling and well installation, maintenance, inspection and repair. Additionally, the Company’s vessels provide accommodations for technicians and specialists, safety support and emergency response services.
For a discussion of risk and economic factors that may impact the Company’s financial position and its results of operations, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

2

Table of Contents

Equipment and Services
The following tables identify the types of vessels that comprise the Company’s fleet as of December 31 for the indicated years. “Owned” are majority owned and controlled by the Company. “Joint Ventured” are owned or operated by entities in which the Company does not have a controlling interest. “Leased-in” may either be vessels contracted from leasing companies to which the Company may have sold such vessels or vessels chartered-in from other third party owners. “Managed” are owned by entities not affiliated with the Company but operated by the Company for a fee. A description of vessel classes follows this table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Owned Fleet
 
Owned(1)
 
Joint
Ventured
 
Leased - in(1)
 

Managed
 
Total
 
Average
Age
 
U.S.-
Flag
 
Foreign-
Flag
2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
11

 
1

 
4

 
7

 
23

 
17

 
8

 
3

Fast support
41

 
5

 
1

 
3

 
50

 
9

 
19

 
22

Supply
12

 
17

 

 
2

 
31

 
11

 
1

 
11

Standby safety
19

 
1

 

 

 
20

 
34

 

 
19

Specialty
1

 
1

 

 
2

 
4

 
15

 

 
1

Liftboats
13

 

 
2

 

 
15

 
14

 
11

 
2

Wind farm utility
37

 
4

 

 

 
41

 
8

 

 
37

 
134

 
29

 
7

 
14

 
184

 
14

 
39

 
95

2016
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
11

 
1

 
4

 
9

 
25

 
16

 
8

 
3

Fast support
33

 
11

 
1

 
3

 
48

 
10

 
18

 
15

Supply
8

 
17

 
1

 
2

 
28

 
14

 
1

 
7

Standby safety
20

 
1

 

 

 
21

 
34

 

 
20

Specialty
3

 
1

 

 
2

 
6

 
13

 

 
3

Liftboats
13

 

 
2

 

 
15

 
14

 
13

 

Wind farm utility
37

 
3

 

 

 
40

 
7

 

 
37

 
125

 
34

 
8

 
16

 
183

 
14


40

 
85

2015
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
13

 
1

 
4

 

 
18

 
15

 
9

 
4

Fast support
23

 
11

 
1

 
3

 
38

 
10

 
8

 
15

Supply
13

 
15

 
2

 
4

 
34

 
14

 
2

 
11

Standby safety
24

 
1

 

 

 
25

 
35

 

 
24

Specialty
3

 
1

 

 
1

 
5

 
20

 

 
3

Liftboats
13

 

 
2

 

 
15

 
13

 
13

 

Wind farm utility
35

 
3

 

 

 
38

 
7

 

 
35

 
124

 
32

 
9

 
8

 
173

 
15

 
32

 
92

______________________
(1)
Excludes three owned and one leased-in offshore support vessels retired and removed from service as of December 31, 2017.
As of December 31, 2017, 55 of the Company’s owned and leased-in vessels were outfitted with dynamic positioning (“DP”) systems. DP systems enable vessels to maintain a fixed position in close proximity to a rig or platform. The most technologically advanced DP systems have enhanced redundancy in the vessel’s power, electrical, computer and reference systems enabling vessels to maintain accurate position-keeping even in the event of failure of one of those systems (“DP-2”) and, in some cases, in the event of fire and flood (“DP-3”).
Anchor handling towing supply (“AHTS”) vessels are used primarily to support offshore drilling activities by towing, positioning and mooring drilling rigs and other marine equipment. AHTS vessels are also used to carry and launch equipment such as remote operated vehicles (“ROVs”) used underwater in drilling and well installation, maintenance, and repair and transport supplies and equipment from shore bases to offshore drilling rigs, platforms and other installations. The defining characteristics of AHTS vessels are: (i) horsepower (“bhp”); (ii) bollard pull, which is the pulling capacity of the AHTS vessel and is important for towing and positioning rigs; (iii) size of winch in terms of “line pull;” and (iv) wire storage capacity. The Company’s fleet of AHTS vessels has varying capabilities and supports offshore mooring activities in water depths ranging from 300 to 8,000 feet. Most modern AHTS vessels are equipped with DP systems and can also carry drilling fluids and cement below-deck. As of December 31, 2017, 12 of the 15 owned and leased-in AHTS vessels were equipped with DP-2 and two were equipped with DP-1.

3

Table of Contents

Fast support vessels (“FSVs”) are lightweight, aluminum hull vessels used primarily to move cargo and personnel to and from offshore drilling rigs, platforms and other installations at greater speeds than traditional steel hull support vessels. FSVs can be catamaran or mono-hull vessels ranging from 130 to 210 feet in length and capable of speeds between 20 to 40 knots with capacities to carry special cargo, support both drilling operations and production services and transport passengers. FSVs built within the last ten years are sometimes equipped with DP-2 systems, firefighting equipment and ride control systems for greater comfort and performance. As of December 31, 2017, 22 of the 42 owned and leased-in FSVs were equipped with DP-2, six were equipped with DP-1, and two were equipped with DP-3. The Company’s FSV fleet includes vessels that have a passenger capacity of 36 to 150 and, on certain newer FSVs, include reclining seating, ambient lighting and other features to enhance marketability for passenger transport.
Supply vessels generally range from 190 to more than 300 feet in length and are primarily used to deliver cargo such as drilling fluids, liquid mud, methanol, diesel fuel and water to rigs and platforms where drilling and work-over activity is underway. These vessels are capable of being modified for a wide variety of other uses and missions, including, but not limited to, construction support typically when fitted with a crane, standby, security, firefighting, accommodation, and limited towing and anchor handling when fitted with a winch. Relevant differentiating features of supply vessels are total carrying capacity (expressed as deadweight: “dwt”), available area of clear deck space, below-deck capacity for storage of mud and cement used in the drilling process, tank storage for water and fuel oil, fuel efficiency and accommodation capacity. Additional factors in the commercial marketability of supply vessels are operating draft because certain markets are limited in the size of vessel that can work safely and local flag preference and cabotage requirements and regulations. To improve station keeping ability, many modern supply vessels have DP systems capabilities. As of December 31, 2017, nine of the 12 owned and leased-in supply vessels were equipped with DP-2.
Standby safety vessels typically remain on location proximate to offshore rigs and production facilities to respond to emergencies. These vessels carry special equipment to rescue personnel and are equipped to provide first aid and shelter. These vessels sometimes perform a dual role, also functioning as supply vessels.
Specialty vessels include anchor handling tugs, accommodation, line handling and other vessels. These vessels generally have specialized features adapting them to specific applications including offshore maintenance and construction services, freight hauling services and accommodation services.
Liftboats provide a self-propelled, stable platform to perform production platform construction, inspection, maintenance and removal; well intervention and work-over; well plug and abandonment; pipeline installation and maintenance; and diving operations. The length of jacking legs (160 feet to 265 feet for the Company’s liftboats) determines the water depth in which these vessels can work. Other differentiating features are crane lifting capacity and reach, clear deck area, electrical generating power and accommodation capacity. Liftboats were originally built and designed for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The standard design has been adapted to international markets, principally West Africa and Middle East, including larger accommodations, longer leg lengths and a preference for four legs compared with three. Additionally, the latest liftboats built internationally feature DP-2.
Wind farm utility vessels are used primarily to move personnel and supplies to offshore wind farms. There are two main types of the Company’s vessels; Windcats and Windspeeds. The Windcat series feature a catamaran hull with flush foredeck, providing a stable platform from which personnel can safely transfer to turbine towers, and are capable of speeds between 25 and 31 knots. The Windspeed series are rapid response vessels with a maximum speed of 38 knots, which are used for light work during the construction and operational periods of offshore wind farms. All of the Company’s wind farm utility vessels have been built since 2005.
In addition to its existing fleet, the six liftboat vessels acquired in connection with the MOI Joint Venture and the eight new supply vessels to be constructed as part of the SEACOSCO transaction, the Company has new construction projects in progress for 11 offshore support vessels, including:
two U.S.-flag, DP-2 fast support vessels scheduled for delivery between the first quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020;
two U.S.-flag, DP-2 fast support vessels with uncertain delivery dates as the Company, at its option, may defer their construction for an indefinite period of time;
three U.S.-flag, DP-2 supply vessels scheduled for delivery between the third quarter of 2018 and third quarter of 2019; and
four foreign-flag wind farm utility vessels scheduled for delivery between the first quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019.
This new equipment will meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Tier III environmental regulations. Vessels whose keel was laid after January 1, 2016 will have to meet EPA Tier IV environmental regulations, which the Company believes will add expense to the new construction of offshore support vessels, and may possibly be beyond current design capabilities.

4

Table of Contents

Markets
The Company operates its fleet in five principal geographic regions: the United States, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico; Africa, primarily in West Africa; the Middle East and Asia; Brazil, Mexico, Central and South America; and Europe, primarily in the North Sea. The Company’s vessels are highly mobile and regularly and routinely move between countries within a geographic region. In addition, the Company’s vessels are redeployed among its geographic regions, subject to flag restrictions, as changes in market conditions dictate.
The table below sets forth vessel types by geographic market as of December 31 for the indicated years. The Company sometimes participates in joint venture arrangements in certain geographical locations in order to enhance marketing capabilities and facilitate operations in certain foreign markets allowing for the expansion of its fleet and operations while diversifying risks and reducing capital outlays associated with such expansion.
 
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
United States, primarily U.S. Gulf of Mexico:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
 
10

 
10

 
9

Fast support
 
20

 
19

 
8

Supply
 
4

 
4

 
9

Specialty
 
1

 
1

 

Liftboats
 
12

 
15

 
15

 
 
47

 
49

 
41

Africa, primarily West Africa:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
 
3

 
5

 
5

Fast support
 
9

 
10

 
11

Supply
 
6

 
4

 
5

Specialty
 

 
1

 
1

Wind farm utility
 

 

 

 
 
18

 
20

 
22

Middle East and Asia:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
 
10

 
10

 
2

Fast support
 
16

 
14

 
14

Supply
 
8

 
7

 
8

Specialty
 
3

 
4

 
4

Liftboats
 
2

 

 

Wind farm utility
 
2

 
2

 
1

 
 
41

 
37

 
29

Brazil, Mexico, Central and South America:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor handling towing supply
 

 

 
2

Fast support
 
5

 
5

 
5

Supply
 
13

 
13

 
12

Liftboats
 
1

 

 

 
 
19

 
18

 
19

Europe, primarily North Sea:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Standby safety
 
20

 
21

 
25

Wind farm utility
 
39

 
38

 
37

 
 
59

 
59

 
62

Total Foreign Fleet
 
137

 
134

 
132

Total Fleet
 
184

 
183

 
173

United States, primarily U.S. Gulf of Mexico. As of December 31, 2017, 47 vessels were located in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, including 37 owned, five leased-in, three joint ventured and two managed. The Company’s vessels in this market support deepwater anchor handling, fast cargo transport, general cargo transport, well intervention, work-over, decommissioning and diving operations.
Africa, primarily West Africa. As of December 31, 2017, 18 vessels were located in West Africa, including 14 owned, two leased-in, one joint ventured and one managed. The Company’s vessels in this area generally support projects for major oil companies, primarily in Angola. Other vessels in this region operate in the Republic of the Congo and Mauritania.
Middle East and Asia. As of December 31, 2017, 41 vessels were located in the Middle East and Asia, including 25 owned, five joint ventured and 11 managed. The Company’s vessels in this area generally support exploration, personnel transport

5

Table of Contents

and seasonal construction activities in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, India and countries along the Arabian Gulf and Arabian Sea, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Brazil, Mexico, Central and South America. As of December 31, 2017, 17 vessels were located in Mexico, including two owned and 15 joint ventured through the Company’s 49% noncontrolling interest in Mantenimiento Express Maritimo, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“MexMar”). These vessels, consisting of a fleet of FSVs, supply and liftboat vessels, provide support for exploration and production activities in Mexico. In addition, two owned vessels were located in Brazil. From time to time, the Company’s vessels have worked in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Colombia and Venezuela.
Europe, primarily North Sea. As of December 31, 2017, 20 vessels were located in Europe providing standby safety and supply services, including 19 owned and one joint ventured. Demand for standby services developed in 1991 after the United Kingdom passed legislation requiring offshore operators to maintain higher specification standby safety vessels. The legislation requires a vessel to “stand by” to provide a means of evacuation and rescue for platform and rig personnel in the event of an emergency at an offshore installation. In addition, 39 vessels were located in this region supporting the construction and maintenance of offshore wind turbines, including 35 owned and four joint ventured. In the past, the Company has operated supply and AHTS vessels in this region.
Seasonality
The demand for the Company’s fleet can fluctuate with weather conditions because maintenance, construction and decommissioning activities are planned during times of the year with more favorable weather conditions. Seasonality is most pronounced for the liftboat fleet in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, offshore support vessels in the Middle East and wind farm utility vessels in the North Sea, with peak demand normally occurring during the summer months. As a consequence of this seasonality, the Company typically schedules drydockings or other repair and maintenance activity during the winter months.
Customers and Contractual Arrangements
The Company’s principal customers are major integrated national and international oil companies and independent oil and natural gas exploration and production companies. Consolidation of oil and natural gas companies through mergers and acquisitions over the past several years has reduced the Company’s customer base. This has negatively affected exploration, field development and production activity as consolidated companies generally focus, at least initially, on increasing efficiency and reducing costs and delay or abandon exploration activity with less promise. During the year ended December 31, 2017, one customer, Perenco UK Limited, was responsible for 10% or more of the Company’s operating revenues. The Company’s ten largest customers accounted for approximately 59% of its operating revenues in 2017. The loss of one or more of these customers could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
The Company earns revenues primarily from the time charter and bareboat charter of vessels to customers based upon daily rates of hire. Therefore, vessel revenues are recognized on a daily basis throughout the contract period. Under a time charter, the Company provides a vessel to a customer and is responsible for all operating expenses, typically excluding fuel. Under a bareboat charter, the Company provides a vessel to a customer and the customer assumes responsibility for all operating expenses and all risk of operation. In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, time charter durations and rates are typically established in the context of master service agreements that govern the terms and conditions of the charter. From time to time, the Company may also participate in pooling arrangements whereby the time charter revenues of certain of the Company’s vessels are shared with the time charter revenues of certain vessels of similar type owned by non-affiliated vessel owners based upon an agreed formula.
Contract or charter durations may range from several days to several years. Longer duration charters are more common where equipment is not as readily available or specific equipment is required. In the North Sea, multi-year charters have been more common and constitute a significant portion of that market. Time charters in Asia have historically been less common and generally contracts or charters have terms of less than two years. In the Company’s other operating areas, charters vary in length from short-term to multi-year periods, many with cancellation clauses and no early termination penalty. As a result of options and frequent renewals, the stated duration of charters may have little correlation with the length of time the vessel is actually contracted to provide services to a particular customer.
Competitive Conditions
The market for offshore marine services is highly competitive. The most important competitive factors are pricing and the availability and specifications of equipment to fit customer requirements. Other important factors include service, reputation, flag preference, local marine operating conditions, the ability to provide and maintain logistical support given the complexity of a project and the cost of moving equipment from one geographic region to another.
The Company has numerous competitors in each of the geographic regions in which it operates, ranging from international companies that operate in many regions to smaller local companies that typically concentrate their activities in one specific region.

6

Table of Contents

Risks of Foreign Operations
For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, 87%, 85% and 68%, respectively, of the Company’s operating revenues and $1.9 million, $(4.2) million, and $8.6 million, respectively, of the Company’s equity in earnings (losses) from 50% or less owned companies, net of tax, were derived from its foreign operations.
Foreign operations are subject to inherent risks, which, if they materialize, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows or growth prospects. See the risk factors regarding international operations in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”
Government Regulation
The Company’s ownership, operation, construction and staffing of vessels is subject to significant regulation under various international, federal, state and local laws and regulations, including international conventions and ship registry laws of the nations under which the Company’s vessels are flagged.
Regulatory Matters
Domestically registered vessels are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”), the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), EPA and the U.S. Maritime Administration, as well as in certain instances applicable state and local laws. The Company’s operations may, from time to time, also fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) and its Safety and Environmental Management System regulations, and the Company must also periodically certify that its maritime operations adhere to those regulations. These agencies and organizations establish safety requirements and standards and are authorized to investigate vessels and accidents and to recommend improved maritime safety standards.
The Company is subject to regulation under the Jones Act and related U.S. cabotage laws, which restrict ownership and operation of vessels in the U.S. coastwise trade (i.e., trade between points in the United States), including the transportation of cargo. Subject to limited exceptions, the Jones Act requires that vessels engaged in U.S. coastwise trade be built in the United States, registered under the U.S.-flag, manned by predominantly U.S. crews, and owned and operated by U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act. Violation of the Jones Act could prohibit operation of vessels in the U.S. coastwise trade during the period of such non-compliance, result in material fines and subject Company vessels to seizure and forfeiture.
To facilitate compliance with the Jones Act, the Company’s Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Second Amended and Restated By-Laws: (i) limit the aggregate percentage ownership by non-U.S. citizens of any class of the Company’s capital stock (including Common Stock) to 22.5% of the outstanding shares of each such class to ensure that ownership by non-U.S. citizens will not exceed the maximum percentage permitted by applicable maritime law (presently 25%) but authorize the Company’s Board of Directors, under certain circumstances, to increase the foregoing percentage to 24%; (ii) require institution of a dual stock certification system to help determine such ownership; (iii) provide that any issuance or transfer of shares in excess of such permitted percentage shall be ineffective as against the Company and that neither the Company nor its transfer agent shall register such purported issuance or transfer of shares or be required to recognize the purported transferee or owner as a stockholder of the Company for any purpose whatsoever except to exercise its remedies; (iv) provide that any such excess shares shall not have any voting or dividend rights; (v) permit the Company to redeem any such excess shares; and (vi) permit the Board of Directors to make such reasonable determinations as may be necessary to ascertain such ownership and implement such limitations. In addition, the Company’s Second Amended and Restated By-Laws provide that the number of non-U.S. citizen directors shall not exceed a minority of the number necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and restrict any non-U.S. citizen officer from acting in the absence or disability of the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer or the President.
The Company operates vessels that are registered in the United States and others registered in a number of foreign jurisdictions. Vessels are subject to the laws of the applicable jurisdiction as to ownership, registration, manning, environmental protection and safety. Vessels operated as standby safety vessels in the North Sea are subject to the requirements of the Department of Transport of the United Kingdom pursuant to the United Kingdom Safety Act. In addition, the Company’s vessels are subject to the requirements of a number of international conventions, as amended, that are applicable to vessels depending on their jurisdiction of registration. Among the more significant of these conventions are: (i) the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (“MARPOL”); (ii) the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and 1978 Protocols (“SOLAS”); and (iii) the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (“STCW”).
The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (the “MLC”) establishes comprehensive minimum requirements for working conditions of seafarers including, among other things, conditions of employment, hours of work and rest, grievance and complaints procedures, accommodations, recreational facilities, food and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare, and social security protection. The MLC also provides a definition of seafarer that includes all persons engaged in work on a vessel in addition to

7

Table of Contents

the vessel’s crew. Under this MLC definition, the Company may be responsible for proving that customer and contractor personnel aboard its vessels have contracts of employment that comply with the MLC requirements. The Company could also be responsible for salaries and/or benefits of third parties that may board one of its vessels. The MLC requires certain vessels that engage in international trade to maintain a valid Maritime Labour Certificate issued by their flag administration. Although the United States is not a party to the MLC, U.S.-flag vessels operating internationally must comply with the MLC when visiting a port in a country that is a party to the MLC. The Company has developed and implemented a fleetwide plan designed to comply with the MLC to the extent applicable to its vessels.
The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by an international classification society authorized by its country of registry, and be subject to survey and inspection by shipping regulatory bodies. The international classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the United Nations Safety of Life at Sea Conventions. Certain of the Company’s vessels are subject to the periodic inspection, survey, drydocking and maintenance requirements of the USCG, the American Bureau of Shipping and other marine classification societies.
Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, the Company’s U.S.-flagged vessels will be subject to repositioning by the U.S. Government under certain terms and conditions during a national emergency as described further in the risk factor under the heading “The Company’s U.S.-flag vessels are subject to requisition for ownership or use by the United States in case of national emergency or national defense need” under Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
In addition to the USCG, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety, the BSEE and certain individual U.S. states regulate vessels, facilities and pipelines in accordance with the requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”) or analogous state law. There is currently little uniformity among the regulations issued by these agencies, which increases the Company’s compliance costs and risk of non-compliance.
Although the Company faces some risk when responding to third-party oil spills, a responder engaged in emergency and crisis activities has immunity from liability under federal law and all U.S. coastal state laws for any spills arising from its response efforts, except in the event of death or personal injury or as a result of its gross negligence or willful misconduct. As a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010, the response industry has sought to expand the responder immunity provisions enacted in OPA 90.
Environmental Compliance
The Company is subject to extensive federal, state, local and international environmental and safety laws and regulations, including laws and regulations related to the discharge of oil and pollutants into waters regulated thereunder. Violations of these laws may result in civil and criminal penalties, fines, injunctions, or other sanctions.
The Company does not expect that it will be required to make capital expenditures in the near future to comply with environmental laws and regulations that would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, cash flows or growth prospects; however, because such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly strict requirements, the Company cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these laws and regulations.
OPA 90 establishes a regulatory and liability regime for the protection of the environment from oil spills. OPA 90 applies to owners and operators of facilities operating near navigable waters of the United States and owners, operators and bareboat charterers of vessels operating in U.S. waters, which include the navigable waters of the United States and the 200 mile exclusive economic zone around the United States (the “EEZ”). For purposes of its liability limits and financial responsibility and response planning requirements, OPA 90 differentiates between tank vessels (such as chemical and petroleum product vessels and liquid tank barges) and “other vessels” (such as the Company’s offshore support vessels).
Under OPA 90, owners and operators of regulated facilities and owners and operators or bareboat charterers of vessels are “responsible parties” and may be jointly, severally and strictly liable for removal costs and damages arising from facility and vessel oil spills or threatened spills up to certain limits of liability (except if the limits are broken as discussed below). Damages are defined broadly to include: (i) injury to natural resources and the costs of remediation thereof; (ii) injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property; (iii) net loss by the United States government, a state or political subdivision thereof, of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and profits; (iv) lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resources damage; (v) net costs of providing increased or additional public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire or other hazards or taking additional safety precautions; and (vi) loss of subsistence use of available natural resources.
OPA 90 limits liability for responsible parties for non-tank vessels, such as the Company’s, to the greater of $1,100 per gross ton or $939,800. These liability limits do not apply (a) if an incident is caused by the responsible party’s violation of federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by the responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, (b) if the

8

Table of Contents

responsible party fails to report the incident or to provide reasonable cooperation and assistance in connection with oil removal activities as required by a responsible official or (c) if the responsible party fails to comply with an order issued under OPA 90.
OPA 90 requires vessel owners and operators to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of insurance or qualification as a self-insurer or other evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under OPA 90. The Company has satisfied USCG regulations by providing evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by commercial insurance and self-insurance. OPA 90 regulations also implement the financial responsibility requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which imposes liability for discharges of hazardous substances, similar to OPA 90, and provides compensation for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. Liability per vessel under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million, unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct, or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.
Under the Nontank Vessel Response Plan Final Rule, owners and operators of nontank vessels are required to prepare Nontank Vessel Response Plans (“NTVRPs”). The Company expects its current pollution liability insurance to cover any cost of spill removal subject to coverage deductibles and limitations, including a cap of $1.0 billion. There could be a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows or growth prospects if the Company incurs spill liability under circumstances in which the insurance carrier fails or refuses to provide coverage or the loss exceeds the Company’s coverage limitations.
MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by vessels from operational or accidental discharges. It is implemented in the United States pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.
Since the 1990s, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has been aggressively enforcing U.S. criminal laws against vessel owners, operators, managers, crew members, shore side personnel, and corporate officers related to violations of MARPOL. Violations have related to pollution prevention devices, such as the oily-water separator, and include falsifying records, obstructing justice, and making false statements. In certain cases, responsible shipboard officers and shoreside officials have been sentenced to prison. In addition, the DOJ has required most defendants to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan (“ECP”) or risk losing the ability to trade in U.S. waters. If the Company is subjected to a DOJ prosecution, it could face significant criminal penalties and defense costs as well as costs associated with the implementation of an ECP.
The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of “pollutants” into the navigable waters of the United States. The CWA also prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances, into navigable waters of the United States and the EEZ around the United States and imposes civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized discharges, thereby exposing the Company to liability that is in addition to liability arising under OPA 90 and CERCLA.
The CWA also established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting program, which governs discharges of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States. Pursuant to the NPDES program, the EPA has issued Vessel General Permits covering discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. The current Vessel General Permit (the “2013 VGP”), which became effective in December 2013, applies to U.S.-flag and foreign-flag commercial vessels that are at least 79 feet in length and operate within the three-mile territorial sea of the United States. The 2013 VGP requires vessel owners and operators to adhere to “best management practices” to manage the covered discharges that occur normally in the operation of a vessel, including ballast water, and implements various training, inspection, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements, as well as corrective actions upon identification of deficiencies. The Company has filed a Notice of Intent to be covered by the 2013 VGP for each of its ships that operate in U.S. waters.
The EPA has indicated that a new Vessel General Permit will be issued by the end of 2018. The Company can provide no assurance that the permit will be issued on a timely basis, or at all, nor can it predict what additional costs it may incur to comply with any new Vessel General Permit.
Many countries have ratified and are thus subject to the liability scheme adopted by the International Maritime Organization (the “IMO”) and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (the “1969 Convention”). Some of these countries have also adopted the 1992 Protocol to the 1969 Convention (the “1992 Protocol”). Under both the 1969 Convention and the 1992 Protocol, 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 from ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, subject to certain complete defenses. These conventions also limit the liability of the shipowner under certain circumstances, provided the discharge was not causes by the shipowner’s actual fault or intentional or reckless misconduct.
Vessels trading to countries that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. The Company believes that its Protection and Indemnity (“P&I”) insurance will cover any liability under these conventions, subject to applicable policy deductibles, exclusions and limitations.
The United States is not a party to the 1969 Convention or the 1992 Protocol, and thus OPA 90, CERCLA, CWA and other federal and state laws apply in the United States as discussed above. In other jurisdictions where the 1969 Convention has

9

Table of Contents

not been adopted, various legislative and regulatory schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that convention.
The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, was adopted to ensure that adequate, prompt and effective compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil when used as fuel by vessels. The convention applies to damage caused to the territory, including the territorial sea, and in the EEZs, of the countries that are party to it. Although the United States has not ratified this convention, U.S.-flag vessels operating internationally would be subject to it if they sail within the territories of those countries that have implemented its provisions. The Company believes that its vessels comply with these requirements.
The National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”) was enacted in the United States in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. waters through ballast water taken on by vessels in foreign ports. The USCG adopted regulations under NISA that impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters. All new vessels constructed on or after December 1, 2013, regardless of ballast water capacity, must comply with these requirements on delivery from the shipyard absent an extension from the USCG. For non-exempt vessels, ballast water treatment equipment may be required to be used on the vessel. In response to these requirements, the Company’s ships operating in the United States waters currently use water from U.S. public systems.
Some U.S. states have enacted legislation or regulations to address the introduction of invasive species through ballast water and hull cleaning management, and permitting requirements, which in many cases have also become part of the state’s 2013 VGP certification. Other states may proceed with the enactment of similar requirements that could increase the Company’s costs of operating in state waters.
The IMO ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, otherwise known as the Ballast Water Management Convention (the “BWM Convention”), which entered into force on September 8, 2017. Under the BWM Convention, all ships in international traffic are required to manage their ballast water and sediments under a ship-specific ballast water management plan. The United States is not a party to the BWM Convention, but vessels that undertake international voyages may have to install an IMO approved ballast water treatment system or use one of the other management options under the BWM Convention to achieve compliance. In response to these requirements, the Company currently uses a BWM Convention-compliant ballast water management method of chemical disinfectant on its vessels operating outside the United States.
The Endangered Species Act, related regulations and comparable state laws protect species threatened with possible extinction. Protection may include restrictions on the speed of vessels in certain ocean waters and may require the Company to change the routes of vessels during particular periods.
The Clean Air Act (as amended, the “CAA”) requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. The CAA also requires states to submit State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”), which are designed to attain national health-based air quality standards throughout the United States, including major metropolitan and/or industrial areas. Several SIPs regulate emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. The EPA and some U.S. states have each proposed more stringent regulations of air emissions from propulsion and auxiliary engines on oceangoing vessels.
MARPOL also addresses air emissions, including emissions of sulfur and nitrous oxide (“NOx”), from vessels, including a requirement to use low sulfur fuels worldwide in both auxiliary and main propulsion diesel engines on vessels. Vessels worldwide are currently required to use fuel with a sulfur content no greater than 3.5%, which the IMO decided in October 2016 to reduce to 0.5% beginning in January 2020. As a result of this reduction, fuel costs for vessel operators could rise dramatically beginning in 2020, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. MARPOL also imposes NOx emissions standards on installed marine diesel engines of over 130 kW output power other than those used solely for emergency purposes irrespective of the tonnage of the vessel into which such an engine is installed. Different levels, or Tiers, of control apply based on the vessel’s construction date. Within any particular Tier, the actual NOx limit is determined from the engine’s rated speed on a sliding scale based on engine revolutions per minute. The Tier III controls apply only to the specified vessels while operating in an Emission Control Area (“ECA”), as discussed below, established to further limit NOx emissions. The Tier II controls apply to vessels operating in areas outside of ECAs.
More stringent sulfur and NOx requirements apply in certain designated ECAs. There are currently four ECAs worldwide: the Baltic Sea ECA, North Sea ECA, North American ECA, and U.S. Caribbean ECA. As of January 1, 2015, vessels operating in an ECA must burn fuel with a sulfur content no greater than 0.1%. Further, marine diesel engines on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2016 that are operated in an ECA must meet the stringent NOx standards described above.
The Company’s operations occasionally generate and require the transportation, treatment and disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes that are subject in the United States to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) or comparable U.S. state, local or foreign requirements. From time to time the Company arranges for the disposal

10

Table of Contents

of hazardous waste or hazardous substances at offsite disposal facilities. The EPA has a longstanding policy that RCRA only applies after wastes are “purposely removed” from a vessel. As a general matter, with certain exceptions, vessel owners and operators are required to determine if their wastes are hazardous, obtain a generator identification number, comply with certain standards for the proper management of hazardous wastes, and use hazardous waste manifests for shipments to disposal facilities. Moreover, vessel owners and operators may be subject to more stringent U.S. state hazardous waste requirements. If such materials are improperly disposed of by third parties with which the Company contracts, the Company may still be held liable for cleanup costs under applicable laws.
MARPOL also governs the discharge of garbage from ships. MARPOL defines certain sea areas, such as the “wider Caribbean region” as “special areas” requiring a higher level of protection than other areas of the sea.
Applicable MARPOL regulations provide for strict garbage management procedures and documentation requirements for all vessels and fixed and floating platforms. These regulations impose a general prohibition on the discharge of all garbage unless the discharge is expressly provided for under the regulations. The regulations have greatly reduced the amount of garbage that vessels are allowed to dispose of at sea and have increased the Company’s costs of disposing garbage remaining on board vessels at their port calls.
Various international conventions and federal, state and local laws and regulations have been considered or implemented to address the environmental effects of emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. The U.S. Congress has considered, but not adopted, legislation designed to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. At various United Nations climate change conferences, specific international accords or protocols to establish binding limitations on greenhouse gas emissions have been proposed. In December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted pursuant to which member parties agreed to implement national programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. At the 2015 United Nations climate change conference in Paris, the Paris Agreement, which seeks to reduce emissions in an effort to slow global warming, was adopted. The Paris Agreement was signed by the United States in 2016, but in August 2017, the U.S. State Department officially informed the United Nations of the United States’ intent to withdraw. The Paris Agreement does not specifically mention shipping.
The IMO’s third study of greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping fleet, which was concluded in 2014, predicted that, in the absence of appropriate policies, greenhouse gas emissions from ships could increase by 50% to 250% by 2050 depending on economic growth and energy developments in the future. The IMO has announced its intention to develop limits on greenhouse gases from international shipping and is working on proposed mandatory technical and operational measures to achieve these limits. The first step toward this goal occurred in October 2016, when the IMO adopted a system for collecting data on ships’ fuel-oil consumption, which will be mandatory and apply globally.
In June 2013, the European Commission proposed legislation and established a strategy for progressively integrating maritime emissions into the E.U.’s policy for reducing domestic greenhouse emissions. As of January 1, 2015, E.U. Member States have to ensure that ships in the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel are using fuels with a sulfur content of no more than 0.10%. In addition, the European Parliament and E.U. Council have adopted a series of regulations beginning with Regulation 2015/757, which became effective on July 1, 2015, that establish a system for monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions from vessels of 5,000 or more gross tons calling at E.U. ports. The first reporting period began on January 1, 2018.
In the United States, pursuant to an April 2007 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the EPA was required to consider whether carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, and thus subject to regulation under the CAA. In October 2007, the California Attorney General and a coalition of environmental groups petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from oceangoing vessels under the CAA. On December 1, 2009, the EPA issued an “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases under the CAA. To date, the regulations proposed and enacted by the EPA regarding carbon dioxide have not involved oceangoing vessels. Under MARPOL, vessels operating in designated ECAs are required to meet fuel sulfur limits and NOx emission limits, including the use of engines that meet the EPA standards for NOx emissions, as discussed above.
Any future adoption of climate control treaties, legislation or other regulatory measures by the United Nations, IMO, EU, United States or other countries where the Company operates that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could result in financial and operational impacts on the Company’s business (including potential capital expenditures to reduce such emissions) that the Company cannot predict with certainty at this time. In addition, there may be significant physical effects of climate change from such emissions that have the potential to negatively impact the Company’s customers, personnel, and physical assets, any of which could adversely impact cargo levels, the demand for the Company’s services, or the Company’s ability to recruit personnel.
The Company manages exposure to losses from the above-described laws through its development of appropriate risk management programs, including compliance programs, safety management systems and insurance programs. Although the Company believes these programs mitigate its legal risk, there can be no assurance that any future regulations or requirements or any discharge or emission of pollutants by the Company will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows or growth prospects.

11

Table of Contents

Security
Heightened awareness of security needs brought about by the events of September 11, 2001 has caused the USCG, the IMO, states and local ports to adopt heightened security procedures relating to ports and vessels.
Specifically, on November 25, 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (“MTSA”) was signed into law. To implement certain portions of MTSA, in July 2003, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, the IMO adopted amendments to SOLAS, known as the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (the “ISPS Code”), creating a new chapter dealing specifically with maritime security. The chapter came into effect in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities. Among the various requirements under MTSA and/or the ISPS Code are:
onboard installation of automatic information systems to enhance vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-shore communications;
onboard installation of ship security alert systems;
the development of vessel and facility security plans;
the implementation of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential program; and
compliance with flag state security certification requirements.
The USCG regulations, which are intended to align with international maritime security standards, generally deem foreign-flag vessels to be in compliance with MTSA vessel security measures provided such vessels have onboard a valid International Ship Security Certificate that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. However, U.S.-flag vessels that are engaged in international trade must comply with all of the security measures required by MTSA, as well as SOLAS and the ISPS Code.
In response to these new security programs, the Company has implemented security plans and procedures for each of its U.S.-flag vessels pursuant to rules implementing MTSA that have been issued by the USCG.
The International Safety Management Code (“ISM Code”), adopted by the IMO as an amendment to SOLAS, provides international standards for the safe management and operation of ships and for the prevention of marine pollution from ships. The United States enforces the ISM Code for all U.S.-flag vessels and those foreign-flag vessels that call at U.S. ports. All of the Company’s vessels that are 500 or more gross tons are required to be certified under the standards set forth in the ISM Code’s safety and pollution protocols. The Company also voluntarily complies with these protocols for some vessels that are under the mandatory 500-gross ton threshold. Under the ISM Code, vessel operators are required to develop an extensive safety management system (“SMS”) that includes, among other things, the adoption of a written system of safety and environmental protection policies setting forth instructions and procedures for operating their vessels subject to the ISM Code, and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. The Company has developed such a safety management system. These SMS policies apply to both the vessel and shore-side personnel and are vessel specific. The ISM Code also requires a Document of Compliance (“DOC”) to be obtained for the vessel manager and a Safety Management Certificate (“SMC”) to be obtained for each vessel subject to the ISM Code that it operates or manages. The Company has obtained DOCs for its shore side offices that have responsibility for vessel management and SMCs for each of the vessels that such offices operate or manage.
Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or charterer to increased liability, 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 USCG authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from utilizing United States ports.
Industry Hazards and Insurance
Vessel operations involve inherent risks associated with carrying large volumes of cargo and rendering services in a marine environment. Hazards include adverse weather conditions, collisions, fire and mechanical failures, which may result in death or injury to personnel, damage to equipment, loss of operating revenues, contamination of cargo, pollution and other environmental damages and increased costs. The Company maintains hull, liability and war risk, general liability, workers compensation and other insurance customary in the industry in which it operates. The Company believes it will be able to renew any expiring policy without causing a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company also conducts training and safety programs to promote a safe working environment and minimize hazards.

12

Table of Contents

Employees
As of December 31, 2017, the Company employed 1,818 individuals directly and indirectly (through crewing or manning agreements), including 671 seafarers in the North Sea some of whom are members of a union under the terms of an ongoing agreement.
Management considers relations with its employees to be satisfactory.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Risks, Uncertainties and Other Factors That May Affect Future Results
The Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects may be materially adversely affected by numerous risks. Carefully consider the risks described below, which represent some of the more material risk factors that affect the Company, as well as the other information that has been provided in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The risks described below include all known material risks faced by the Company. Additional risks not presently known may also impair the Company’s business operations.
Risk Factors Related to the Company’s Business and Industry
The Company is exposed to fluctuating prices of oil and decreased demand for oil.
The market for the Company’s offshore support services is impacted by the comparative price for exploring, developing, and producing oil and natural gas and by the corresponding supply and demand for oil and natural gas, both globally and regionally. Among other factors, the increased supply of oil and natural gas from the development of new oil and natural gas supply sources and technologies to improve recovery from current sources, particularly shale, have reduced the price of oil and natural gas as well as demand and prices charged for offshore support services globally. The advent of electric cars, development of alternative sources of energy to hydrocarbons, such as solar and wind power, could also diminish the demand for oil and natural gas. Such diminution of demand could place continued or additional pressure on the price of oil and therefore demand for the Company’s services, as developing offshore oil fields, particularly in deep waters, is one of the most expensive sources of hydrocarbons. Other factors that influence the supply and demand and the relative price of oil include operational issues, natural disasters, weather, political instability, conflicts, civil unrest, the worldwide political and military environment, acts of terrorism, foreign exchange rates, economic conditions and actions by major oil-producing countries. The price of oil and the relative cost to extract, proximity to market and political imperatives of countries with offshore deposits affect the willingness to commit investment for contract drilling rigs and offshore support vessels used for offshore exploration, field development and production activities, which in turn affects the Company’s results of operations. Prolonged periods of low oil and natural gas prices or rising costs result in lower demand for the Company’s services and can give rise to impairments of the Company’s assets.
Beginning in the second half of 2014 and through the beginning of 2016, the price of oil dropped significantly, from a high of $107 per barrel during 2014 to a thirteen-year low of less than $27 per barrel in February 2016 (on the New York Mercantile Exchange). Prices remained low through 2016, and while prices have recovered recently, they still remain lower than prices from earlier in the decade. As of December 31, 2017, the price per barrel was approximately $60. When the Company’s customers experience low commodity prices or come to believe that they will be low in the future, they generally reduce their capital spending for offshore drilling, exploration and field development. The significant decrease in oil and natural gas prices that began in the second half of 2014 caused a reduction in many of the Company’s customers’ exploratory, drilling, completion and other production activities and, as a result, related spending on the Company’s services. As such, the Company’s overall fleet utilization for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, was 54%, 54% and 69%, respectively. The prolonged reduction in the overall level of exploration and development activities, whether resulting from changes in oil and natural gas prices or otherwise, has materially and adversely affected the Company by negatively impacting its fleet utilization, which in turn has negatively affected its revenues, cash flows and profitability, the fair market value of the Company’s vessels and its ability to obtain additional debt or equity capital to finance its business. During the two years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company took an aggregate of $27.5 million and $119.7 million, respectively, of impairment charges primarily as a result of the low utilization rate of its fleet, coupled with the low rates per day worked over such two years. It could also affect the collectability of the Company’s receivables and its ability to retain skilled personnel. Periods of low activity intensify price competition in the industry and can lead to the Company’s vessels being idle for long periods of time.
If difficult market conditions persist and an anticipated recovery is delayed beyond the Company’s expectation, further deterioration in the fair value of vessels already impaired or revisions to its forecasts may result in the Company recording additional impairment charges related to its fleet in future periods.

13

Table of Contents

Demand for many of the Company’s services is impacted by the level of activity in the offshore oil and natural gas exploration, development and production industry.
The level of offshore oil and natural gas exploration, development and production activity has historically been volatile. This volatility is likely to continue. The level of activity is subject to large fluctuations in response to relatively minor changes in a variety of factors that are beyond the Company’s control, including:
the worldwide economic environment, trends in international trade or other economic trends, including recessions and the level of activity in energy-consuming markets;
prevailing oil and natural gas prices and expectations about future prices and price volatility;
assessments of offshore drilling prospects compared with land-based opportunities;
the cost of exploring for, producing and delivering oil and natural gas offshore and the relative cost of, and success in, doing so on land;
consolidation of oil and natural gas and oil service companies operating offshore;
worldwide supply and demand for energy, petroleum products and chemical products;
availability and rate of discovery of new oil and natural gas reserves in offshore areas;
federal, state, local and international political and economic conditions, and policies including cabotage and local content laws;
technological advancements affecting exploration, development, energy production and consumption;
the ability or willingness of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) to set and maintain production levels and pricing;
the level of oil and natural gas production by non-OPEC countries;
international sanctions on oil producing countries and the lifting of certain sanctions against Iran;
civil unrest and the worldwide political and military environment, including uncertainty or instability resulting from an escalation or additional outbreak of armed hostilities involving the Middle East, Russia, other oil-producing regions or other geographic areas or further acts of terrorism in the United States or elsewhere;
weather conditions;
environmental regulation;
regulation of drilling activities and the availability of drilling permits and concessions;
the ability of oil and natural gas companies to generate or otherwise obtain funds for capital projects; and
the development and exploitation of alternative fuel or energy sources.
The prolonged material downturn in oil and natural gas prices has caused a substantial decline in expenditures for exploration, development and production activity, which has resulted in a decline in demand and lower rates for the Company’s offshore energy support services and, in turn, lower utilization levels over the last two years. The continuation or worsening of such decrease in activity is likely to further reduce the Company’s day rates and its utilization, which may in turn have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. In addition, an increase in commodity demand and prices will not necessarily result in an immediate increase in offshore or petroleum drilling activity since project development lead and planning times, reserve replacement needs, expectations of future commodity demand, prices and supply of available competing vessels all combine to affect demand for the Company’s vessels.
Moreover, for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, approximately 13%, 15% and 32%, respectively, of the Company’s operating revenues were earned in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Historically, the Company has been and continues to be dependent on levels of activity in that region, which may differ from levels of activity in other regions of the world due to more localized factors. Although the Company has some ability to shift the location of its assets, it is unlikely that the Company would be able to shift a sufficient number of assets from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to counter a significant localized downturn in activity.
Unconventional crude oil and natural gas sources and improved economics of producing natural gas and oil from such sources has and will likely continue to exert downward pricing pressures on the price of crude oil and natural gas.
The rise in production of crude oil and natural gas from shale in North America and the commissioning of a number of new large Liquefied Natural Gas export facilities around the world are, at least to date, the primary contributors to an over-supplied

14

Table of Contents

natural gas market and a similar environment for the crude oil market. While production of crude oil and natural gas from unconventional sources is still a relatively small portion of the worldwide crude oil and natural gas production, improved drilling efficiencies are lowering the costs of extraction from these sources. The rise in production of natural gas and oil from these sources not only affects the price of oil but can also result in a reduction of capital invested in offshore oil and natural gas exploration. Because the Company provides vessels servicing offshore oil and natural gas exploration, a significant reduction in investments in offshore exploration and development in favor of investments in these unconventional resources could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
Difficult economic conditions and volatility in the capital markets could materially adversely affect the Company.
The success of the Company’s business is both directly and indirectly dependent upon conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions throughout the world that are outside the Company’s control and difficult to predict. Factors such as commodity prices, interest rates, availability of credit, inflation rates, changes in laws (including laws relating to taxation), trade barriers, currency exchange rates and controls, and national and international political circumstances (including wars, terrorist acts or security operations) can have a material negative impact on the Company’s business and investments, which could reduce its revenues and profitability. Uncertainty about global economic conditions may lead or require businesses to postpone capital spending in response to tighter credit and reductions in income or asset values and to cancel or renegotiate existing contracts because their access to capital is impeded. This would in turn affect the Company’s profitability or results of operations. These factors may also adversely affect the Company’s liquidity and financial condition and the liquidity and financial conditions of its customers. Volatility in the conditions of the global economic markets can also affect the Company’s ability to raise capital at attractive prices. The Company’s ongoing exposure to credit risks on its accounts receivable balances are heightened during periods when economic conditions worsen. The Company has procedures that are designed to monitor and limit exposure to credit risk on its receivables; however, there can be no assurance that such procedures will effectively limit the Company’s credit risk and avoid losses that could have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. Unstable economic conditions may also increase the volatility of the Company’s stock price.
The Company may record additional losses or impairment charges related to sold or idle vessels.
During 2017, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized impairment charges of $27.5 million, $119.7 million and $7.1 million, respectively, related to tangible assets. Prolonged periods of low utilization or low day or charter rates, the sale of assets below their then carrying value or the decline in market value of the Company’s assets may cause the Company to experience further losses. If there are indications that the carrying value of any of the Company’s vessels may not be recoverable or if the Company sells assets for less than their then carrying value, the Company may recognize additional impairment charges on its fleet.
Failure to maintain an acceptable safety record may have an adverse impact on the Company’s ability to retain customers.
The Company’s customers consider safety and reliability a primary concern in selecting a service provider. The Company must maintain a record of safety and reliability that is acceptable to its customers. Should this not be achieved, the ability to retain current customers and attract new customers may be adversely affected, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
There is a high level of competition in the offshore marine service industry.
The Company operates in a highly competitive industry, and the competitive nature of its industry and excess supply of equipment is currently depressing charter and utilization rates. A prolonged period of depressed rates could adversely affect the Company’s financial performance. The Company competes for business on the basis of price, reputation for excellent service, quality, suitability and technical capabilities of its vessels, availability of vessels, safety and efficiency, cost of mobilizing vessels from one market to a different market, and national flag preference. Further, competition has intensified as lower activity in the offshore oil and natural gas market has led to lower utilization and additional capacity. In addition, the Company’s ability to compete in international markets may be adversely affected by regulations requiring, among other things, local construction, flagging, ownership or control of vessels, the awarding of contracts to local contractors, the employment of local citizens and/or the purchase of supplies from local vendors. If the Company is unable to successfully compete, it may have a materially adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
An increase in the supply of vessels or equipment that serve offshore oil and natural gas operations could have an adverse impact on the charter rates earned by the Company’s vessels and equipment.
The Company’s industry is highly competitive, with oversupply of vessel capacity and intense price competition. Expansion of the supply of vessels and equipment that serve offshore oil and natural gas operations has increased competition in the markets in which the Company operates and affected prices charged by operators. Further, the refurbishment of disused or “mothballed” vessels, conversion of vessels from uses other than oil and natural gas exploration and production support and related activities or construction of new vessels and equipment have all added vessel and equipment capacity to current worldwide levels. The current oversupply of vessels and equipment capacity in the offshore marine market could lower charter rates and result in

15

Table of Contents

lower operating revenues, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company relies on several customers for a significant share of its revenues, the loss of any of which could adversely affect the Company’s business and operating results.
The Company derives a significant portion of its revenues from a limited number of oil and natural gas exploration, development and production companies and government agencies. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, the Company’s ten largest customers accounted for approximately 59%, 58% and 55% of its operating revenues. During the year ended December 31, 2017, one customer, Perenco UK Limited, was responsible for 10% or more of the Company’s operating revenues. The portion of the Company’s revenues attributable to any single customer may change over time, depending on the level of activity by any such customer, the Company’s ability to meet the customer’s needs and other factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. In addition, most of the Company’s contracts with its oil and natural gas customers can be canceled on relatively short notice and do not commit its customers to acquire specific amounts of services or require the payment of significant liquidated damages upon cancellation. The loss of business from any of the Company’s significant customers could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Further, to the extent any of the Company’s customers experience an extended period of operating difficulty, it may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, revenues, results of operation, cash flows and growth prospects.
Consolidation of the Company’s customer base could adversely affect demand for its services and reduce its revenues.
In recent years, oil and natural gas companies, energy companies and drilling contractors have undergone substantial consolidation and additional consolidation is possible. Consolidation results in fewer companies to charter or contract for the Company’s services. Also, merger activity among both major and independent oil and natural gas companies affects exploration, development and production activity as the consolidated companies integrate operations to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Less promising exploration and development projects of a combined company may be dropped or delayed. Such activity may result in an exploration and development budget for a combined company that is lower than the total budget of both companies before consolidation, which could adversely affect demand for the Company’s vessels thereby reducing its revenues.
The Company may be unable to maintain or replace its offshore support vessels as they age.
As of December 31, 2017, the average age of the Company’s owned vessels, excluding its standby safety and wind farm utility vessels, was approximately 11 years. The Company believes that after a vessel has been in service for approximately 20 years, the expense (which typically increases with age) necessary to satisfy required marine certification standards may not be economically justifiable. In addition, the Company must maintain its vessels to remain attractive to its customers and comply with regulations; however, the Company may be unable to carry out drydockings of its vessels or may be limited by insufficient shipyard capacity, which could adversely affect its ability to maintain its vessels. In addition, market conditions may not justify these expenditures or enable the Company to operate its older vessels profitably during the remainder of their economic lives. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maintain its fleet by extending the economic life of existing vessels, or that its financial resources will be sufficient to enable it to make expenditures necessary for these purposes or to acquire or build replacement vessels, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The failure to successfully complete construction or conversion of the Company’s vessels, repairs, maintenance or routine drydockings on schedule and on budget could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
From time to time, the Company may have a number of vessels under conversion and may plan to construct or convert other vessels in response to current and future market conditions. The Company also routinely engages shipyards to drydock vessels for regulatory compliance and to provide repair and maintenance. Construction and conversion projects and drydockings are subject to risks of delay and cost overruns, resulting from shortages of equipment, lack of shipyard availability, unforeseen engineering problems, work stoppages, weather interference, unanticipated cost increases, inability to obtain necessary certifications and approvals and shortages of materials or skilled labor. A significant delay in either construction or drydockings could have a material adverse effect on contract commitments and revenues with respect to vessels under construction, conversion or undergoing drydockings. Significant cost overruns or delays for vessels under construction, conversion or retrofit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The operations of the Company’s fleet may be subject to seasonal factors.
Demand for the Company’s offshore support services is directly affected by the levels of offshore drilling and production activity. Budgets of many of the Company’s customers are based upon a calendar year, and demand for the Company’s services has historically been stronger in the second and third calendar quarters when allocated budgets are expended by its customers and weather conditions are more favorable for offshore activities. In particular, the demand for the Company’s liftboat fleet in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and offshore support vessels in the Middle East are seasonal with peak demand normally occurring during

16

Table of Contents

the summer months. Adverse events relating to the Company’s vessels or business operations during peak demand periods could have a more significant adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Additionally, seasonal volatility can create unpredictability in activity and utilization rates, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company has high levels of fixed costs that will be incurred regardless of its level of business activity.
The Company’s business has high fixed costs. Downtime or low productivity due to reduced demand, as is currently being experienced, can have a significant negative effect on the Company’s operating results and financial condition. Some of the Company’s fixed costs will not decline during periods of reduced revenue or activity. During times of reduced utilization, the Company may not be able to reduce its costs immediately as it may incur additional costs associated with preparing vessels for cold stacking. Moreover, the Company may not be able to fully reduce the cost of its support operations in a particular geographic region due to the need to support the remaining vessels in that region. A decline in revenue due to lower day rates and/or utilization may not be offset by a corresponding decrease in the Company’s fixed costs and could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
As the markets recover or the Company changes its marketing strategies or for other reasons, the Company may be required to incur higher than expected costs to return previously cold-stacked vessels to class.
In response to the decrease in demand stemming from lower oil and natural gas prices, the Company has cold-stacked a number of offshore support vessels. As of December 31, 2017, 37 of its 141 owned and leased-in offshore support vessels were cold-stacked worldwide. No assurance can be given that the Company will be able to quickly bring these cold-stacked offshore support vessels back into service or that the cost of doing so would not be significant. Cold-stacked vessels are not always maintained with the same diligence as the Company’s marketed fleet. As a result, and depending on the length of time the vessels are cold-stacked, the Company could incur deferred drydocking costs for regulatory recertification to return these vessels to active service and may incur costs to hire and train mariners to operate such vessels. These costs are difficult to estimate and could be substantial. Delay in reactivating cold stacked offshore support vessels and the costs and other expenses related to the reactivation of cold-stacked offshore support vessels could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company may not be able to renew or replace expiring contracts for its vessels.
The Company’s ability to renew or replace expiring contracts or obtain new contracts, and the terms of any such contracts, will depend on various factors, including market conditions and the specific needs of its customers. Given the highly competitive and historically cyclical nature of the industry, the Company may not be able to renew or replace expiring contracts or it may be required to renew or replace expiring contracts or obtain new contracts at rates that are below, and potentially substantially below, existing day rates, or that have terms that are less favorable to the Company than its existing contracts, or it may be unable to secure contracts for these vessels. This could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The early termination of contracts on the Company’s vessels could have a material adverse effect on its operations.
Most of the long-term contracts for the Company’s vessels contain early termination options in favor of the customer. Although some of such contracts have early termination remedies or other provisions designed to discourage the customer from exercising such options, the Company cannot assure investors that its customers would not choose to exercise their termination rights in spite of such remedies or the threat of litigation with the Company. Until replacement of such business with other customers, any termination could temporarily disrupt the Company’s business or otherwise adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations. The Company might not be able to replace such business on economically equivalent terms. In addition, during the current and prior downturns, the Company has experienced customers requesting contractual concessions even though such concessions were contrary to existing contractual terms. While the Company may not be legally required to give concessions, commercial considerations may dictate that it do so. If the Company is unable to collect amounts owed to it or long-term contracts for its vessels are terminated and its vessels are not sufficiently utilized, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
Increased domestic and international laws and regulations may materially adversely impact the Company, and the Company may become subject to additional international laws and regulations in the event of high profile incidents, such as the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig incident and resulting oil spill.
Changes in laws or regulations regarding offshore oil and natural gas exploration and development activities and technical and operational measures, whether or not in connection with specific incidents, may increase the Company’s costs and the costs of its customers’ operations. For instance, on April 22, 2010, an incident involving, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible deep water drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico,resulted in fatalities and a significant flow of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the “Deepwater Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident”). In response to the Deepwater Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident, the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over oil and natural gas exploration, including the U.S. Department of the

17

Table of Contents

Interior and its relevant various sub-agencies, imposed temporary moratoria on drilling operations, by requiring operators to reapply for exploration plans and drilling permits that had previously been approved, and by adopting numerous new regulations and new interpretations of existing regulations regarding offshore operations that are applicable to the Company’s customers and with which their new applications for exploration plans and drilling permits must prove compliant. Compliance with these new regulations and new interpretations of existing regulations have materially increased the cost of drilling operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. New or additional government regulations or laws concerning drilling operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and other regions have in the past and could in the future materially increase the cost of drilling operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and/or cause additional moratoria on drilling activities. These changes may influence decisions by customers or other industry participants that could reduce the demand for the Company’s services, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, provides the federal government with broad discretion in regulating the leasing of offshore resources for the production of oil and natural gas.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides the federal government with broad discretion in regulating the release or continued use of offshore resources for oil and natural gas production. Because the Company’s operations rely on offshore oil and gas exploration and production, the government’s exercise of authority under the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to restrict the availability of offshore oil and natural gas leases (for example, due to a serious incident of pollution) could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company is subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations that can adversely affect the cost, manner or feasibility of doing business.
Increasingly stringent federal, state, local and international laws and regulations governing worker safety and health and the manning, construction and operation of vessels significantly affect the Company’s operations. Many aspects of the marine industry are subject to extensive governmental regulation and oversight, including by the USCG, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), the NTSB, the EPA, IMO, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Maritime Administration, the CBP, the BSEE, and state environmental protection agencies for those jurisdictions in which the Company operates, and to regulation by states and classification societies (such as the American Bureau of Shipping). The Company is also subject to regulation under international treaties, such as (i) MARPOL; (ii) SOL, and (iii) STCW. These agencies, organizations, regulations and treaties establish safety requirements and standards and are authorized to investigate vessels and accidents and to recommend improved safety standards. The CBP and USCG are authorized to inspect vessels at will. The Company has and will continue to spend significant funds to comply with these regulations and treaties. Failure to comply with these regulations and treaties may cause the Company to incur significant liabilities or restrictions on its operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company’s business and operations are also subject to federal, state, local and international laws and regulations, relating to environmental protection and occupational safety and health, including laws and regulations that govern the discharge of oil and pollutants into waters regulated thereunder. Violations of these laws may result in civil and criminal penalties, fines, injunctions, or other sanctions, or the suspension or termination of the Company’s operations. Compliance with such laws and regulations frequently require installation of costly equipment, increased manning, increased fuel costs, specific training, or operational changes. Some environmental laws impose strict and, under certain circumstances, joint and several liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous materials and damage to natural resources, which could subject the Company to liability without regard to whether it is negligent or at fault. Under OPA 90, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil within the navigable waters of the United States and the U.S. EEZ. In addition, an oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines, penalties, criminal liability and costs for natural resource and other damages under other federal and state laws and civil actions. Liability for a catastrophic spill could exceed the Company’s available insurance coverage and result in it having to liquidate assets to pay claims. These laws and regulations may expose the Company to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by others, including charterers. Because such laws and regulations frequently change and may impose increasingly strict requirements, the Company cannot predict the ongoing cost of complying with these laws and regulations. Additionally, reduced enforcement of existing safety and other laws or regulations may result in a decline in the demand for the Company’s offshore support services that are provided in connection with compliance with such laws or regulations. The Company cannot be certain that existing laws, regulations or standards (and the enforcement thereof), as currently interpreted or reinterpreted in the future, or future laws and regulations and standards will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. Regulation of the offshore marine services industry will likely continue to become more stringent and more expensive for the Company. In addition, a serious marine incident that results in significant pollution or injury could result in additional regulation and lead to strict governmental enforcement or other legal challenges. The variability and uncertainty of current and future shipping regulations could hamper the ability of the Company and its customers to plan for the future or establish long-term strategies. Additional environmental and other requirements, as well as more stringent enforcement policies,

18

Table of Contents

may be adopted that could limit the Company’s ability to operate, require the Company to incur substantial additional costs or otherwise have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. For more information, see “Business–Environmental Compliance.”
The Company is required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain, maintain and periodically renew certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to its operations or vessels. In certain instances, the failure to obtain, maintain or renew these authorizations could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
There are risks associated with climate change and environmental regulations.
Governments around the world have, in recent years, placed increasing attention on matters affecting the environment and this could lead to new laws or regulations pertaining to climate change, carbon emissions or energy use that in turn could result in a reduction in demand for hydrocarbon-based fuel. In fact, a number of countries and the IMO have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures or international treaties may include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy and could include specific restrictions on shipping emissions.
Governments could also pass laws or regulations encouraging or mandating the use of alternative energy sources such as wind power and solar energy. These requirements could reduce demand for oil and natural gas and therefore the services provided by the Company. Alternatively, changes in U.S. law permitting additional drilling on federal lands could divert capital from offshore exploration. In addition, new environmental or emissions control laws or regulations may require an increase in the Company’s operating costs and/or in its capital spending for additional equipment or personnel to comply with such requirements and could also result in a reduction in revenues due to downtime required for the installation of such equipment. Such initiatives could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
A violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”) or similar worldwide anti-bribery laws may adversely affect the Company’s business and operations.
In order to effectively compete in certain foreign jurisdictions, the Company seeks to establish joint ventures with local operators or strategic partners. As a U.S. corporation, the Company is subject to the regulations imposed by the FCPA, which generally prohibits U.S. companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or maintaining business. The Company has stringent policies and procedures in place to enforce compliance with the FCPA. Nevertheless, the Company does business and may do additional business in the future in countries and regions where strict compliance with anti-bribery laws may not be customary and the Company may be held liable for actions taken by its strategic or local partners even though these partners may not be subject to the FCPA. The Company’s personnel and intermediaries, including its local operators and strategic partners, may face, directly or indirectly, corrupt demands by government officials, political parties and officials, tribal or insurgent organizations, or private entities in the countries in which it operates or may operate in the future. As a result, the Company faces the risk that an unauthorized payment or offer of payment could be made by one of its employees or intermediaries, even if such parties are not always subject to the Company’s control or are not themselves subject to the FCPA or other similar laws to which the Company may be subject. Any allegation or determination that the Company has violated the FCPA (or any other applicable anti-bribery laws in countries in which the Company does business, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010) could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company has significant international operations, which subjects it to risks. Unstable political, military and economic conditions in foreign countries where a significant proportion of the Company’s operations is conducted could materially adversely impact its business.
The Company operates vessels and transacts other business worldwide. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, 87%, 85% and 68%, respectively, of the Company’s operating revenues and $1.9 million, $(4.2) million, and $8.6 million. respectively, of its equity in earnings (losses) from 50% or less owned companies, net of tax, were derived from its foreign operations. These operations are subject to risks, including potential vessel seizure, terrorist acts, piracy, kidnapping, nationalization of assets, currency restrictions, import or export quotas and other forms of public and government regulation, all of which are beyond the Company’s control. Economic sanctions or an oil embargo, for example, could have significant impact on activity in the oil and natural gas industry and, correspondingly, on the Company should it operate vessels in a country subject to any sanctions or embargo, or in the surrounding region to the extent any sanctions or embargo disrupts its operations.
In addition, the Company’s ability to compete in international markets may be adversely affected by foreign government regulations that favor or require the awarding of contracts to local competitors, or that require foreign persons to employ citizens of, or purchase supplies from, a particular jurisdiction. Further, the Company’s foreign subsidiaries may face governmentally imposed restrictions on their ability to transfer funds to their parent company.

19

Table of Contents

Activity outside the United States involves additional risks, including the possibility of:
United States embargoes or restrictive actions by United States and foreign governments that could limit the Company’s ability to provide services in foreign countries or cause retaliatory actions by such governments;
a change in, or the imposition of, withholding or other taxes on foreign income, tariffs or restrictions on foreign trade and investment;
limitations on the repatriation of earnings or currency exchange controls and import/export quotas;
unwaivable, burdensome local cabotage and local ownership laws and requirements;
nationalization, expropriation, asset seizure, blockades and blacklisting;
limitations in the availability, amount or terms of insurance coverage;
loss of contract rights and inability to enforce contracts;
political instability, war and civil disturbances or other risks that may limit or disrupt markets, such as terrorist acts, piracy and kidnapping;
fluctuations in currency exchange rates, hard currency shortages and controls on currency exchange that affect demand for the Company’s services and its profitability;
potential noncompliance with a wide variety of laws and regulations, such as the FCPA, and similar non-U.S. laws and regulations, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010;
labor strikes;
import or export quotas and other forms of public and government regulation;
changes in general economic and political conditions; and
difficulty in staffing and managing widespread operations.
The United Kingdom (the “U.K.”) held a referendum on June 23, 2016 regarding its membership in the European Union (the “E.U.”) in which a majority of the U.K. electorate voted in favor of the British government taking the necessary action for the U.K. to withdraw from the E.U. (the “Brexit”). On March 29, 2017, the U.K. notified the E.U. that it intended to withdraw from the E.U. as provided in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“Article 50”). The terms of the withdrawal are subject to a negotiation period that could last at least two years from the withdrawal notification date.
The Company faces risks associated with the uncertainty following the referendum, the Article 50 notification, and the consequences that may result from the U.K.’s decision to exit the E.U. Among other things, the U.K.’s decision to leave the E.U., along with calls for the governments of other E.U. member states to also consider withdrawal, has caused, and is anticipated to continue to cause, significant new uncertainties and instability in European and global financial markets and currency exchange rate fluctuations, which may affect the Company and the trading price of the Company’s Common Stock. In addition, the exit of the U.K. from the E.U. could lead to legal and regulatory uncertainty and potentially divergent treaties, laws and regulations as the U.K. determines which E.U. treaties, laws and regulations to replace or replicate, including those governing maritime, labor, environmental, competition and other matters applicable to the provision of support vessel services. The impact on the Company’s business of any treaties, laws and regulations with and in the U.K. that replace the existing E.U. counterparts cannot be predicted. Any of these effects, and others the Company cannot anticipate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company’s results could be impacted by U.S. social, political, regulatory and economic conditions as well as by changes in tariffs, trade agreements or other trade restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
Changes in U.S. political, regulatory and economic conditions or in laws and policies governing foreign trade (including the North American Free Trade Agreement and U.S. tariff policies), travel to and from the United States, immigration, manufacturing, development and investment in the territories and countries in which the Company operates, and any negative sentiments or retaliatory actions towards the United States as a result of such changes, could adversely affect the global marine and support transportation services industry, which could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
Adverse results of legal proceedings could materially adversely affect the Company.
The Company is subject to and may in the future be subject to a variety of legal proceedings and claims that arise out of the ordinary conduct of its business. Results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Irrespective of its merits, litigation may be both lengthy and disruptive to the Company’s operations and may cause significant expenditure and diversion of management attention. The Company may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive relief against it that which

20

Table of Contents

could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects should it fail to prevail in certain matters.
There are risks associated with the Company’s debt structure.
As of December 31, 2017, the Company has $314.9 million of outstanding indebtedness, including the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes and obligations under secured notes and credit facilities secured by mortgages on various vessels.
The Company’s ability to meet its debt service obligations and refinance its current indebtedness, as well as any future debt that it may incur, will depend upon its ability to generate cash in the future from operations, financings or asset sales, which are subject to general economic conditions, the Company’s results of operations, industry cycles, seasonality and financial, business, the general state of the capital markets at the time it seeks to refinance its debt and other factors, some of which may be beyond the Company’s control. If the Company cannot repay or refinance its debt as it becomes due, the Company may be forced to sell assets or take other disadvantageous actions, including undertaking alternative financing plans, which may have onerous terms or may be unavailable, dedicating an unsustainable level of the Company’s cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on its indebtedness and/or reducing the amount of liquidity available for working capital, capital expenditures and general corporate purposes. The Company’s failure to pay or refinance its current or future debt under a credit facility when it becomes due could lead to the acceleration of all amounts due under such facility and potentially trigger a default or acceleration of the Company’s other debt facilities. In addition, certain of the Company’s debt facilities contain, and its future debt facilities may contain, restrictive and/or financial maintenance covenants, including requirements to maintain a minimum level of liquidity which could also affect cash available for working capital, capital expenditures and general corporate purposes. Failure to comply with these covenants could result in the lenders accelerating all amounts due under the facility and potentially trigger a default or acceleration of the Company’s other debt facilities. The Company’s obligations to repay indebtedness and comply with restrictive and/or financial maintenance covenants could also impair its ability to rapidly respond to changes in its business or industry and withstand competitive pressures. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition - Liquidity and Capital Resources” for additional information. The Company’s overall debt level and/or market conditions could limit its ability to issue additional debt in amounts and/or on terms that it considers reasonable.
The Company is subject to hazards customary for the operation of vessels that could disrupt operations and expose it to liability.
The operation of offshore support and related vessels is subject to various risks, including catastrophic disaster, adverse weather, mechanical failure and collision. For instance, the Company’s operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico may be adversely affected by weather. The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June through November. Tropical storms and hurricanes may limit the Company’s ability to operate vessels in the proximity of storms, reduce oil and natural gas exploration, development and production activity, and could result in the Company incurring additional expenses to secure equipment and facilities. They may also require the Company to evacuate its vessels, personnel and equipment out of the path of a storm. Additional risks to vessels include adverse sea conditions, capsizing, grounding, oil and hazardous substance spills and navigation errors. These risks could endanger the safety of the Company’s personnel, equipment, cargo and other property, as well as the environment. If any of these events were to occur, the Company could be held liable for resulting damages, including loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts, higher insurance rates, increased operating costs, increased governmental regulation and reporting and damage to the Company’s reputation and customer relationships. Any such events would likely result in negative publicity for the Company and adversely affect its safety record, which would affect demand for its services in a competitive industry. In addition, the affected vessels could be removed from service and would then not be available to generate revenues.
The Company’s insurance coverage may be inadequate to protect it from the liabilities that could arise in its business.
Although the Company maintains insurance coverage against the risks related to its business, risks may arise for which it may not be insured. Claims covered by insurance are subject to deductibles, the aggregate amount of which could be material, and certain policies impose caps on coverage. Insurance policies are also subject to compliance with certain conditions, the failure of which could lead to a denial of coverage as to a particular claim or the voiding of a particular insurance policy. There also can be no assurance that existing insurance coverage can be renewed at commercially reasonable rates or that available coverage will be adequate to cover future claims. If a loss occurs that is partially or completely uninsured, or the carrier is unable or unwilling to cover the claim, the Company could be exposed to substantial liability. Further, to the extent the proceeds from insurance are not sufficient to repair or replace a damaged asset, the Company would be required to expend funds to supplement the insurance and in certain circumstances may decide that such expenditures are not justified, which, in either case, could adversely affect the Company’s liquidity and ability to grow.
The Company may undertake one or more significant corporate transactions that may not achieve their intended results, may adversely affect its financial condition and its results of operations, and may result in additional risks to its business.
The Company continuously evaluates the acquisition and disposition of assets relevant to participants in the offshore oil and natural gas industry and may in the future undertake significant transactions. Any such transaction could be material to the Company’s business and could take any number of forms, including mergers, joint ventures, investments in new lines of business

21

Table of Contents

and the purchase of equity interests or assets. The form of consideration associated with such transactions may include, among other things, cash, Common Stock, securities convertible into Common Stock or other securities (privately or through a public offering), equity interests in the Company’s subsidiaries, or other assets of the Company. The Company also evaluates the disposition of its assets, in whole or in part, which could take the form of asset sales, mergers or sales of equity interests in its subsidiaries (privately or through a public offering).
These types of significant transactions may present material risks and uncertainties, including distraction of management from current operations, insufficient revenue to offset liabilities assumed, potential loss of significant revenue and income streams, unexpected expenses, inadequate return of capital, potential acceleration of taxes currently deferred, regulatory or compliance issues, the triggering of certain covenants in the Company’s debt instruments (including accelerated repayment) and other unidentified issues not discovered in due diligence. As a result of the risks inherent in such transactions, the Company cannot guarantee that any such transaction will ultimately result in the realization of the anticipated benefits of the transaction or that significant transactions will not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or its results of operations. If the Company was to complete such an acquisition, disposition, investment or other strategic transaction, it may require additional debt or equity financing that could result in a significant increase in the amount of debt the Company has or the number of outstanding shares of its Common Stock.
If the Company does not restrict the amount of ownership of its Common Stock by non-U.S. citizens, it could be prohibited from operating offshore support vessels in the United States, which would adversely impact the Company’s business and operating results.
The Company is subject to the Jones Act, which governs, among other things, the ownership and operation of vessels used to carry passengers and cargo between points in the United States. Subject to limited exceptions, the Jones Act requires that vessels engaged in the U.S. coastwise trade be built in the United States, registered under the U.S. flag, manned by predominantly U.S. crews and be owned and operated by “U.S. citizens” within the meaning of the Jones Act. Compliance with the Jones Act requires that non-U.S. citizens own no more than 25% in the entities that directly or indirectly own the vessels that the Company operates in U.S. coastwise trade. Although the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws contain provisions intended to assure compliance with these provisions of the Jones Act, a failure to maintain compliance could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows and could temporarily or permanently prohibit the Company from operating vessels in the U.S. coastwise trade. In addition, the Company could be subject to fines and its vessels could be subject to seizure and forfeiture for violations of the Jones Act and the related U. S. vessel documentation laws.
Repeal, amendment, suspension or non-enforcement of the Jones Act would result in additional competition for the Company and could have a material adverse effect on its business.
Substantial portions of the Company’s operations are conducted in the U.S. coastwise trade and thus subject to the provisions of the Jones Act (discussed above). For years, there have been attempts to repeal or amend such provisions, and such attempts are expected to continue in the future.
For example, in a 2017 congressional review of Puerto Rico’s financial situation following Hurricane Maria, several proponents of repealing the Jones Act offered bills to exempt the island from the Jones Act. Although the proposals were limited in scope and failed, there is a risk that such legislation could be reintroduced by the special committee tasked with overseeing Puerto Rico’s financial reorganization or others, which could lead to broader legislation affecting other aspects of the Jones Act.
Under certain conditions, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security can grant waivers of the Jones Act to foreign vessel operators. Thus far, the Secretary has granted waivers only for relatively short periods in connection with natural disasters and the transportation of petroleum released from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Nonetheless, future waivers, particularly if for longer periods, could result in increased competition, which could negatively impact the Company’s Jones Act operations.
Repeal, substantial amendment or waiver of provisions of the Jones Act could significantly adversely affect the Company by, among other things, resulting in additional competition from competitors with lower operating costs, because of their ability to use vessels built in lower-cost foreign shipyards, owned and manned by foreign nationals with promotional foreign tax incentives and with lower wages and benefits than U.S. citizens. In addition, the Company’s advantage as a U.S.-citizen operator of Jones Act vessels could be eroded by periodic efforts and attempts by foreign interests to circumvent certain aspects of the Jones Act. If maritime cabotage services were included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the North American Free Trade Agreement or other international trade agreements, or if the restrictions contained in the Jones Act were otherwise altered, the shipping of maritime cargo between covered U.S. points could be opened to foreign-flag or foreign-built vessels. Because foreign vessels may have lower construction costs and operate at significantly lower costs than companies operating in the U.S. coastwise trade, such a change could significantly increase competition in the U.S. coastwise trade, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.

22

Table of Contents

Restrictions on non-U.S. citizen ownership of the Company’s vessels could limit its ability to sell off any portion of its business or result in the forfeiture of its vessels.
As noted above, compliance with the Jones Act requires that non-U.S. citizens own no more than 25% in the entities that directly or indirectly own the vessels that the Company operates in the U.S. coastwise trade. If the Company was to seek to sell any portion of its business that owns any of these vessels, it would have fewer potential purchasers, since some potential purchasers might be unable or unwilling to satisfy the U.S. citizenship restrictions described above. As a result, the sales price for that portion of the Company’s business may not attain the amount that could be obtained through unconstrained bidding. Furthermore, if at any point the Company or any of the entities that directly or indirectly own its vessels cease to satisfy the requirements to be a U.S. citizen within the meaning of the Jones Act, the Company would become ineligible to operate in the U.S. coastwise trade and may become subject to penalties and risk forfeiture of its vessels.
The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and its second amended and restated bylaws limit the ownership of Common Stock by individuals and entities that are not U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act. These restrictions may affect the liquidity of the Company’s Common Stock and may result in non-U.S. citizens being required to sell their shares at a loss or relinquish their voting, dividend and distribution rights.
Under the Jones Act, at least 75% of the outstanding shares of each class or series of the Company’s capital stock must be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act. Certain provisions of the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and its second amended and restated bylaws are intended to facilitate compliance with this requirement and may have an adverse effect on holders of shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
Under the provisions of the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation, the aggregate percentage of ownership by non-U.S. citizens of any class or series of the Company’s capital stock is limited to 22.5% of the outstanding shares of each such class or series to ensure that such ownership by non-U.S. citizens will not exceed the maximum percentage permitted by the Jones Act, which is presently 25%. The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation also restricts ownership of shares of any class or series of its capital stock by a single non-U.S. citizen (and any other non-U.S. citizen whose ownership position would be aggregated with such non-U.S. citizen for purposes of the Jones Act) to not more than 4.9% of the outstanding shares of each such class or series. The Company refers to such percentage limitations on ownership by persons who are not U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act as the “applicable permitted percentage.”
The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that any transfer or purported transfer of any shares of any class or series of its capital stock that would otherwise result in ownership (of record or beneficially) by non-U.S. citizens of shares of such class or series in excess of the applicable permitted percentage will be void and ineffective, and neither the Company nor its transfer agent will register any such transfer or purported transfer in the Company records or recognize any such transferee or purported transferee as a stockholder of the Company for any purpose (including for purposes of voting and dividends) except to the extent necessary to effect the remedies available to the Company under its second amended and restated certificate of incorporation.
In the event such transfer restriction would be ineffective for any reason, the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that if any transfer would otherwise result in ownership (of record or beneficially) by non-U.S. citizens of shares of such class or series in excess of the applicable permitted percentage, such transfer will cause such excess shares to be automatically transferred to a trust for the exclusive benefit of one or more charitable beneficiaries that are U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act. The proposed transferee will have no rights in the shares transferred to the trust, and the trustee, who will be a U.S. citizen chosen by the Company and unaffiliated with the Company or the proposed transferee, will have all voting, dividend and distribution rights associated with the shares held in the trust. The trustee will sell such excess shares to a U.S. citizen within 20 days of receiving notice from the Company (or as soon thereafter as a sale may be effected in compliance with all applicable securities laws) and distribute to the proposed transferee the lesser of the price that the proposed transferee paid for such shares and the amount received from the sale, and any gain from the sale will be paid to the charitable beneficiary of the trust.
These trust transfer provisions also apply to situations where ownership of a class or series of the Company’s capital stock by non-U.S. citizens in excess of the applicable permitted percentage would result from a change in the status of a record or beneficial owner thereof from a U.S. citizen to a non-U.S. citizen or from a repurchase or redemption by the Company of shares of its capital stock, in which case such person will receive the lesser of the market price of the shares on the date of such status change or such share repurchase or redemption and the amount received from the sale. As part of the foregoing trust transfer provisions, the trustee will be deemed to have offered the excess shares in the trust to the Company at a price per share equal to the lesser of (i) the market price on the date the Company accepts the offer and (ii) the price per share in the purported transfer or original issuance of shares, as described in the preceding paragraph, or the market price per share on the date of the status change or share repurchase or redemption, that resulted in the transfer to the trust.
As a result of the above trust transfer provisions, a proposed transferee that is a non-U.S. citizen, or a record or beneficial owner whose citizenship status change results in excess shares, or whose shares become excess shares as a result of a repurchase

23

Table of Contents

or redemption by the Company of its capital stock may not receive any return on its investment in shares it purportedly purchases or owns, as the case may be, and it may sustain a loss.
To the extent that the above trust transfer provisions would be ineffective for any reason to prevent ownership (of record or beneficially) by non-U.S. citizens of the shares of any class or series of the Company’s capital stock in excess of the applicable permitted percentage, the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Company, in its sole discretion, shall be entitled to redeem all or any portion of such excess shares most recently acquired (as determined by the Company in accordance with guidelines that are set forth in its second amended and restated certificate of incorporation), by non-U.S. citizens, or owned (of record or beneficially) by non-U.S. citizens as a result of a change in citizenship status or a repurchase or redemption by the Company of shares of its capital stock, at a redemption price based on a fair market value formula that is set forth in the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation. The per share redemption price may be paid, as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors, by cash, promissory notes, warrants or a combination thereof. Such excess shares shall not be accorded any voting, dividend or distribution rights until they have ceased to be excess shares, provided that they have not been already redeemed by the Company. As a result of the above provisions, a proposed transferee or owner of the Company’s Common Stock that is a non-U.S. citizen may not receive any return on its investment in shares it purportedly purchases or owns, as the case may be, and it may sustain a loss. Further, the Company may have to incur additional indebtedness, or use available cash (if any), to fund all or a portion of such redemption, in which case its financial condition may be materially weakened.
So that the Company may ensure its compliance with the Jones Act, its second amended and restated certificate of incorporation permits the Company to require that any record or beneficial owner of any shares of its capital stock provide the Company with certain documentation concerning such owner’s citizenship. These provisions include a requirement that every person acquiring, directly or indirectly, five percent (5%) or more of the shares of any class or series of the Company’s capital stock must provide the Company with specified citizenship documentation. In the event that any person does not submit such requested or required documentation to the Company, the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides it with certain remedies, including the suspension of the voting rights of such person’s shares of the Company’s capital stock and the payment of dividends and distributions with respect to those shares into an escrow account. As a result of non-compliance with these provisions, a record or beneficial owner of the shares of Common Stock may lose significant rights associated with those shares.
In addition to the risks described above, the foregoing restrictions on ownership by non-U.S. citizens could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or change in control that might involve a premium price for the Company’s Common Stock or otherwise be in the best interest of its stockholders.
If non-U.S. citizens own more than 22.5% of the Company’s Common Stock, the Company may not have the funds or the ability to redeem any excess shares and it could be forced to suspend its operations in the U.S. coastwise trade.
The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and its second amended and restated bylaws contain provisions prohibiting ownership of its Common Stock by persons who are not U.S. citizens within the meaning of the Jones Act, in the aggregate, in excess of 22.5% of such shares, in order to ensure that such ownership by non-U.S. citizens will not exceed the maximum percentage permitted by the Jones Act, which is presently 25%. The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and its second amended and restated bylaws permit the Company to redeem such excess shares in the event that the transfer of such excess shares to a trust for sale would be ineffective. The per share redemption price may be paid, as determined by the Company’s board of directors, by cash, promissory notes or warrants. However, the Company may not be able to redeem such excess shares for cash because its operations may not have generated sufficient excess cash flow to fund such redemption. If, for any reason, the Company is unable to effect such a redemption when such ownership of shares by non-U.S. citizens is in excess of 25% of the Common Stock, or otherwise prevent non-U.S. citizens in the aggregate from owning shares in excess of 25% of any such class or series of its capital stock, or fail to exercise its redemption rights because it is unaware that such ownership exceeds such percentage, the Company will likely be unable to comply with the Jones Act and will likely be required by the applicable governmental authorities to suspend its operations in the U.S. coastwise trade. Any such actions by governmental authorities would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company’s U.S.-flag vessels are subject to requisition for ownership or use by the United States in case of national emergency or national defense need.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 provides that, during a national emergency declared by presidential proclamation or a period for which the President has proclaimed that the security of the national defense makes it advisable, the Secretary of Transportation may requisition the ownership or use of any vessel owned by U.S. citizens (which includes the Company) and any vessel under construction in the United States. If any of the Company’s vessels were purchased or chartered by the federal government under this law, the Company would be entitled to just compensation, which is generally the fair market value of the vessel in the case of a purchase or, in the case of a charter, the fair market value of charter hire, but the Company would not be entitled to compensation for any consequential damages it may suffer. The purchase or charter for an extended period of time by

24

Table of Contents

the federal government of one or more of the Company’s vessels under this law could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company may not be fully indemnified by its customers for damage to their property or the property of their other contractors.
The Company’s contracts are individually negotiated, and the levels of indemnity and allocation of liabilities in them can vary from contract to contract depending on market conditions, particular customer requirements and other factors existing at the time a contract is negotiated. Additionally, the enforceability of indemnification provisions in the Company’s contracts may be limited or prohibited by applicable law or may not be enforced by courts having jurisdiction, and the Company could be held liable for substantial losses or damages and for fines and penalties imposed by regulatory authorities. The indemnification provisions of the Company’s contracts may be subject to differing interpretations, and the laws or courts of certain jurisdictions may enforce such provisions while other laws or courts may find them to be unenforceable, void or limited by public policy considerations, including when the cause of the underlying loss or damage is the Company’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, when punitive damages are attributable to the Company or when fines or penalties are imposed directly against the Company. The law with respect to the enforceability of indemnities varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Current or future litigation in particular jurisdictions, whether or not the Company is a party, may impact the interpretation and enforceability of indemnification provisions in the Company’s contracts. There can be no assurance that the Company’s contracts with its customers, suppliers and subcontractors will fully protect the Company against all hazards and risks inherent in its operations. There can also be no assurance that those parties with contractual obligations to indemnify the Company will be financially able to do so or will otherwise honor their contractual obligations.
The Company may not be able to sell vessels to improve its cash flow and liquidity because it may be unable to locate buyers with access to financing or to complete any sales on acceptable terms or within a reasonable time frame.
The Company may seek to sell some of its vessels to provide liquidity and cash flow. However, given the current downturn in the oil and natural gas industry, there may not be sufficient activity in the market to sell the Company’s vessels and it may not be able to identify buyers with access to financing or to complete any such sales. Even if the Company is able to locate appropriate buyers for its vessels, any sales may occur on less favorable terms than the terms that might be available in a more liquid market or at other times in the business cycle. In addition, the terms of the Company’s current and future indebtedness may limit its ability to sell assets, including vessels, or require that it use the proceeds from any such sale in specified manner.
The Company may be unable to collect amounts owed to it by its customers.
The Company typically grants its customers credit on a short-term basis. Related credit risks are inherent as the Company does not typically collateralize receivables due from customers. In addition, many of its international customers are state controlled and, as a result, the Company’s receivables may be subject to local political priorities, which are out of the Company’s control. The Company provides estimates for uncollectible accounts based primarily on its judgment using historical losses, current economic conditions and individual evaluations of each customer as evidence supporting the receivables valuations stated on the Company’s financial statements. However, the Company’s receivables valuation estimates may not be accurate and receivables due from customers reflected in its financial statements may not be collectible. The Company’s inability to perform under its contractual obligations, or its customers’ inability or unwillingness to fulfill their contractual commitments to the Company, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company participates in joint ventures, and its investments in joint ventures could be adversely affected by its lack of sole decision-making authority and disputes between its partners and itself.
The Company participates in domestic and international joint ventures to further expand its capabilities, share risks and gain access to local markets. Due to the nature of joint venture arrangements, the Company does not unilaterally control the operating, strategic and financial policies of these business ventures. Decisions are often made on a collective basis, including the purchase and sale of assets, charter arrangements with customers and cash distributions to partners. In addition, joint ventures can often require unanimous approval of the parties to the joint venture or their representatives for certain fundamental decisions, which means that each joint venture party may have a veto right with respect to such decisions, which could lead to deadlock in the operations of the joint venture or partnership. Decisions made by the managers or the boards of these entities may not always be the decision that is most beneficial to the Company as one of the equity holders of the entity and may be contrary to the Company’s objectives and may limit the Company’s ability to transfer its interests. Investments in joint ventures involve risks that would not be present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that the Company’s co-ventures might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Any failure of such other companies to meet their obligations to the Company or to third parties, or any disputes with respect to the parties’ respective rights and obligations, could have a material adverse effect on the joint ventures or their properties and, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.

25

Table of Contents

The Company’s participation in industry-wide, multi-employer, defined benefit pension plans expose it to potential future losses.
Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are participating employers in two industry-wide, multi-employer defined benefit pension plans in the U.K., the U.K. Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund (“MNOPF”) and the U.K. Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund (“MNRPF”). Among other risks associated with multi-employer plans, contributions and unfunded obligations of the multi-employer plan are shared by the plan participants. As a result, the Company may inherit unfunded obligations if other plan participants withdraw from the plan or cease to participate, and in the event that the Company withdraws from participation in one or both of these plans, it may be required to pay the plan an amount based on its allocable share of the underfunded status of the plan. Depending on the results of future actuarial valuations, it is possible that the plans could experience further deficits that will require funding from the Company, which would negatively impact its financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Negative publicity may adversely impact the Company.
Media coverage and public statements that insinuate improper actions by the Company, regardless of their factual accuracy or truthfulness, may result in negative publicity, litigation or governmental investigations by regulators. Addressing negative publicity and any resulting litigation or investigations may distract management, increase costs and divert resources. Negative publicity may have an adverse impact on the Company’s reputation and the morale of its employees, which could materially adversely affect its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company’s operations are subject to certain foreign currency, interest rate, fixed-income, equity and commodity price risks.
The Company is exposed to certain foreign currency, interest rate, fixed-income, equity and commodity price risks and, although some of these risks may be hedged, fluctuations could impact its financial position and its results of operations. The Company has, and anticipates that it will continue to have, contracts denominated in foreign currencies. It is often not practicable for the Company to effectively hedge the entire risk of significant changes in currency rates during a contract period. The Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows have been negatively impacted for certain periods and positively impacted for other periods, and may continue to be affected to a material extent by the impact of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. For example, strengthening of the U.S. dollar could give rise to reduced prices from shipyards and incentivize additional investment in new equipment notwithstanding the current state of such market. The Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows may also be affected by the cost of hedging activities that it undertakes. Volatility in the financial markets and overall economic uncertainty also increase the risk that the actual amounts realized in the future on the Company’s debt and equity instruments could differ significantly from the fair values currently assigned to them. In addition, changes in interest rates may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects. Specifically, rising interest rates, including a potential rapid rise in interest rates, could increase the Company’s cost of capital.
The Company engages in hedging activities which exposes it to risks.
For corporate purposes and also as part of its trading activities, the Company has in the past and may in the future use futures and swaps to hedge risks, such as escalation in fuel costs and movements in foreign exchange rates and interest rates. Such activities can themselves result in losses when a position is purchased in a declining market or a position is sold in a rising market. The Company may also purchase inventory in larger than usual levels to lock in costs when it believes there may be large increases in the price of raw materials or other material used in its business. Such purchases expose the Company to risks of meeting margin calls and drawing on its capital, counter-party risk due to failure of an exchange or institution with which it has entered into a swap, incurring higher costs than competitors or similar businesses that do not engage in such strategies, and losses on its investment portfolio. Such strategies can also cause earnings to be volatile. If the Company fails to offset such volatility, this may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The final impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could be materially different from the Company’s current estimates.
On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law (the “Tax Act”). The Tax Act introduced significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Company continues to examine the impact the Tax Act may have on its business. Notwithstanding the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% as a result of Tax Act, the estimated impact of the new law is based on management’s current knowledge and assumptions and recognized impacts could be materially different from current estimates based upon the Company’s further analysis of the new law.
The Company’s inability to attract and retain qualified personnel and crew its vessels could have an adverse effect on its business.
Attracting and retaining skilled personnel is an important factor in the Company’s future success. In addition, the success of the Company is dependent upon its ability to adequately crew its vessels. The market for qualified personnel is highly competitive and the Company cannot be certain that it will be successful in attracting and retaining qualified personnel and crewing its vessels in the future.

26

Table of Contents

The Company’s success depends on key members of its management, the loss of whom could disrupt its business operations.
The Company depends to a large extent on the efforts and continued employment of its executive officers and key management personnel. It does not maintain key-man insurance. The loss of services of one or more of its executive officers or key management personnel could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company’s employees are covered by federal laws that may subject it to job-related claims in addition to those provided by state laws.
Some of the Company’s employees are covered by provisions of the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act and general maritime law. These laws preempt state workers’ compensation laws and permit these employees and their representatives to pursue actions against employers for job-related incidents in federal courts based on tort theories. Because the Company is not generally protected by the damage limits imposed by state workers’ compensation statutes for these types of claims, it may have greater exposure for any claims made by these employees.
The Company relies on information technology, and if it is unable to protect against service interruptions, data corruption, cyber-based attacks or network security breaches, its operations could be disrupted and its business could be negatively affected.
The Company relies on its own and third-party service providers’ information technology networks and systems to process, transmit and store electronic and financial information; to capture knowledge of its business including its vessel operation systems containing information about vessel positioning and scheduling; to monitor its vessel maintenance and engine systems; to coordinate its business across its bases of operation including cargo delivery and equipment tracking; and to communicate within its organization and with customers, suppliers, partners and other third-parties. The Company’s ability to service customers and operate vessels is dependent on the continued operation of these systems. These information technology systems may be susceptible to damage, disruptions or shutdowns, hardware or software failures, power outages, computer viruses, cyber-attacks, telecommunication failures, user errors or catastrophic events. The Company’s technology systems are also subject to cybersecurity attacks including malware, other malicious software, phishing email attacks, attempts to gain unauthorized access to its data, the unauthorized release, corruption or loss of its data, loss or damage to its data delivery systems and other electronic security breaches.
The Company’s information technology systems are in some cases integrated, so damage, disruption or shutdown to the system could result in a more widespread impact. If the Company’s information technology systems suffer severe damage, disruption or shutdown, and its business continuity plans do not effectively resolve the issues in a timely manner, the Company’s operations could be disrupted and its business could be negatively affected. In addition, cyber-attacks could lead to potential unauthorized access and disclosure of confidential information, data loss and corruption. There is no assurance that the Company will not experience these service interruptions or cyber-attacks in the future. Recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and United States agencies indicate that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. The Company is unable to predict the impact of such regulations at this time. Further, as the methods of cyber-attacks continue to evolve, the Company may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance its protective measures or to investigate and remediate any vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks.
Risk Factors Related to the Company’s Spin-off
The Company relies on SEACOR Holdings’ performance under various agreements and the Company will continue to be dependent on SEACOR Holdings to provide it with support services for its business. In addition, SEACOR Holdings will rely on the Company’s performance under various agreements.
The Company has entered into various agreements with SEACOR Holdings in connection with the Spin-off, including two Transition Services Agreements, a Distribution Agreement, a Tax Matters Agreement and an Employee Matters Agreement. These agreements govern the Company’s relationship with SEACOR Holdings subsequent to the Spin-off including administrative and similar services that each company will provide to the other under the Transition Services Agreements. It is possible that if SEACOR Holdings were to fail to fulfill its obligations under these agreements the Company could suffer operational difficulties or significant losses.
If the Company is required to indemnify SEACOR Holdings for certain liabilities and related losses arising in connection with any of these agreements, the Company may be subject to substantial liabilities, which could materially adversely affect its financial position. Specifically, pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Company and SEACOR Holdings are required to use their commercially reasonable efforts to cause SEACOR Holdings to be released from any guarantees it has given to third-parties on the Company’s behalf or on behalf of the Company’s 50% or less owned companies. If SEACOR Holdings is not released under any of these guarantees, the Company is required to indemnify SEACOR Holdings for any liabilities incurred as a guarantor. As of December 31, 2017, the aggregate amount of obligations that SEACOR Holdings has guaranteed on the Company’s behalf was $69.1 million. Under the Distribution Agreement, the Company must pay SEACOR Holdings a fee of 0.5% per annum of the aggregate amount of guaranteed by SEACOR Holdings.

27

Table of Contents

Under the terms of the Transition Services Agreements, the Company and SEACOR Holdings provide each other with certain support services on an interim basis following the Spin-off. The Company expects these services to be provided for varying durations but no greater than two years following the Spin-off.
Although SEACOR Holdings is contractually obligated to provide the Company with services during the term of the agreement, the Company cannot assure investors that the services will be performed as efficiently or proficiently after the expiration of the agreement, or that the Company will be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on comparable terms. They also contain provisions that may be more favorable than terms and provisions the Company might have obtained in arms-length negotiations with unaffiliated third parties. When SEACOR Holdings ceases to provide services pursuant to the agreement, the Company’s costs of procuring those services from third parties may increase. In addition, the Company may not be able to replace these services or enter into appropriate third-party agreements on terms and conditions, including cost, comparable to those under the SEACOR Holdings Transition Services Agreement. Although the Company intends to replace some of the services provided by SEACOR Holdings under the SEACOR Holdings Transition Services Agreement, the Company may encounter difficulties replacing certain services or be unable to negotiate pricing or other terms as favorable as those it currently has in effect. To the extent that the Company may require additional support from SEACOR Holdings not addressed in the SEACOR Holdings Transition Services Agreement, the Company would need to negotiate the terms of receiving such support in future agreements. Further, if the Company fails to perform under the SEACOR Marine Transition Services Agreement, depending upon the circumstance surrounding the failure, it may become liable to SEACOR Holdings for damages.
The Company may not achieve some or all of the expected benefits of the Spin-off, and the Spin-off could harm the Company’s business.
The Company may not be able to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits expected to result from the Spin-off, or such benefits may be delayed or not occur at all. The Spin-off and distribution was expected to provide various benefits, including, among others, enhanced strategic and management focus, improved management incentive tools and a distinct investment identity.
The Company may not achieve these and other anticipated benefits for a variety of reasons, including, among others:
the Spin-off will require significant amounts of management’s time and effort and the complexity of the transaction may distract management from executing on its business goals;
increased operating and overhead costs in the aggregate;
following the Spin-off, the Company’s business will be less diversified than the SEACOR Holdings business prior to the Spin-off;
the potential loss of synergies from the Spin-off; and
the other actions required to separate the respective businesses could disrupt the Company’s operations.
If the Company fails to achieve some or all of the benefits expected to result from the Spin-off, or if such benefits are delayed, its business could be harmed.
The Company’s ability to meet its capital needs may be harmed by the loss of financial support from SEACOR Holdings, and the lack of availability of capital in the future may affect the Company’s ability to grow its business.
The Company’s business is capital intensive, and to the extent it does not generate sufficient cash from operations, it will need to raise additional funds through public or private debt or equity financings to execute its growth strategy. The loss of financial support from SEACOR Holdings could harm the Company’s ability to meet its capital needs and significantly increase its cost of capital. Adequate sources of capital funding may not be available when needed, or may not be available on favorable terms.
Following the Spin-off, SEACOR Holdings no longer funds the Company’s operations or capital expenditures. In view of the Company’s small relative size as compared with SEACOR Holdings, the Company may not have access to debt financing and, even if the Company does have access, it may not be able to obtain terms as favorable as SEACOR Holdings has been able to achieve in its debt financings. As a result, the Company cannot guarantee investors that it will be able to obtain capital market financing or credit on favorable terms, or at all, in the future. The Company cannot assure investors that its ability to meet its capital needs will not be harmed by the loss of financial support from SEACOR Holdings.
If the Company raises additional funds by issuing equity or certain types of convertible debt securities, dilution to the holdings of its existing stockholders may result. If the Company raises additional debt financing, it will incur additional interest expense and the terms of such debt may be at less favorable rates than existing debt and could require the pledge of assets as security or subject the Company to financial and/or operating covenants that affect the Company’s ability to conduct its business. Any capital raising activities would be subject to the restrictions in the Tax Matters Agreement. If funding is insufficient at any time in the future, or the Company is unable to conduct capital raising activities as a result of restrictions in the Tax Matters Agreement, the Company may be unable to acquire additional vessels, take advantage of business opportunities or respond to

28

Table of Contents

competitive pressures, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
If there is a determination that the Spin-off was taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes because the facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings underlying the tax opinion were incorrect or for any other reason, then SEACOR Holdings, its stockholders that are subject to U.S. federal income tax and SEACOR Marine could incur significant U.S. federal income tax liabilities.
In connection with the Spin-off, SEACOR Holdings received an opinion of its counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, substantially to the effect that the Spin-off qualifies as a transaction that is described in Section 355 of the Code. The opinion relied on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings from SEACOR Holdings and the Company regarding the past and future conduct of the companies’ respective businesses and other matters. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings were incorrect, SEACOR Holdings and its stockholders may not be able to rely on the opinion of counsel and could be subject to significant tax liabilities. Notwithstanding the opinion of counsel, the IRS could determine on audit that the Spin-off was taxable if it determines that any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings were not correct or had been violated or if it disagrees with the conclusions in the opinion, or for other reasons, including as a result of certain significant changes in the stock ownership of SEACOR Holdings or SEACOR Marine after the Spin-off. If the Spin-off is determined to be taxable, SEACOR Holdings, its stockholders that are subject to U.S. federal income tax and the Company could incur significant U.S. federal income tax liabilities.
Prior to the Spin-off, the Company and SEACOR Holdings entered into the Tax Matters Agreement that governs the parties’ respective rights, responsibilities and obligations with respect to taxes, tax attributes, the preparation and filing of tax returns, the control of audits and other tax proceedings and assistance and cooperation in respect of tax matters. Taxes relating to or arising out of the failure of the Spin-off to qualify as a tax-free transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes are the responsibility of SEACOR Holdings, except, in general, if such failure is attributable to the Company’s action or inaction or SEACOR Holdings’ action or inaction.
The Company’s obligations under a Tax Matters Agreement are not limited in amount or subject to any cap. Further, even if the Company is not responsible for tax liabilities of SEACOR Holdings and its subsidiaries under the Tax Matters Agreement, the Company nonetheless could be liable under applicable tax law for such liabilities if SEACOR Holdings were to fail to pay them. If the Company is required to pay any liabilities under the circumstances set forth in the Tax Matters Agreement or pursuant to applicable tax law, the amounts may be significant.
The Company may not be able to engage in certain corporate transactions for a period of time after the Spin-off.
To preserve the tax-free treatment to SEACOR Holdings of the Spin-off, under the Tax Matters Agreement with SEACOR Holdings, the Company may not take any action that would jeopardize the favorable tax treatment of the distribution. These restrictions may limit the Company’s ability to pursue certain strategic transactions or engage in other transactions that might increase the value of its business for the two-year period following the Spin-off.
A number of the Company’s directors and officers own common stock and other equity instruments of SEACOR Holdings, which could cause conflicts of interests.
A number of the directors and officers own a substantial amount of SEACOR Holdings common stock (including restricted share awards that vested upon consummation of the Spin-off) along with other equity instruments, the value of which is related to the value of SEACOR Holdings common stock. The direct and indirect interests of the Company’s directors and officers in SEACOR Holdings common stock and the presence of certain of SEACOR Holdings principal executives on the Company’s board of directors could create, or appear to create, conflicts of interest with respect to matters involving both the Company and SEACOR Holdings that could have different implications for SEACOR Holdings than they do for the Company. As a result, the Company may be precluded from pursuing certain opportunities on which it would otherwise act, including growth opportunities.
The Company does not intend to adopt specific policies or procedures to address conflicts of interests that may arise as a result of certain of its directors and officers owning SEACOR Holdings common stock. The Company has adopted a Related Person Transactions Policy to provide guidance in identifying, reviewing and, where appropriate, approving or ratifying transactions with related persons. In addition, prior to consummation of the Spin-off, the Company adopted separate Corporate Governance Guidelines, a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and a Supplemental Code of Ethics that will provide guidelines to its directors and officers in addressing conflicts of interest.
The Spin-off may expose the Company to potential liabilities arising out of state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws and legal dividend requirements.
The Spin-off is subject to review under various state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws. Fraudulent conveyance laws generally provide that an entity engages in a constructive fraudulent conveyance when (i) the entity transfers assets and does not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value in return, and (ii) the entity (a) is insolvent at the time of the transfer

29

Table of Contents

or is rendered insolvent by the transfer, (b) has unreasonably small capital with which to carry on its business, or (c) intends to incur or believes it will incur debts beyond its ability to repay its debts as they mature. An unpaid creditor or an entity acting on behalf of a creditor (including without limitation a trustee or debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy by the Company or SEACOR Holdings or any of the Company’s respective subsidiaries) may bring an action alleging that the distribution or any of the related transactions constituted a constructive fraudulent conveyance. If a court accepts these allegations, it could impose a number of remedies, including without limitation, voiding the Company’s claims against SEACOR Holdings, requiring the Company’s shareholders to return to SEACOR Holdings some or all of the shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued in the distribution, or providing SEACOR Holdings with a claim for money damages against the Company in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by SEACOR Holdings and the fair market value of the Company at the time of the distribution.
The measure of insolvency for purposes of the fraudulent conveyance laws will vary depending on which jurisdiction’s law is applied. Generally, an entity would be considered insolvent if (i) the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than the amount of its liabilities (including contingent liabilities); (ii) the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than its probable liabilities on its debts as such debts become absolute and matured; (iii) it cannot pay its debts and other liabilities (including contingent liabilities and other commitments) as they mature; or (iv) it has unreasonably small capital for the business in which it is engaged. The Company cannot assure investors what standard a court would apply to determine insolvency or that a court would determine that the Company, SEACOR Holdings or any of the Company’s respective subsidiaries were solvent at the time of or after giving effect to the distribution.
The distribution of SEACOR Marine Common Stock is also subject to review under state corporate distribution statutes. Under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), a corporation may only pay dividends to its shareholders either (i) out of its surplus (net assets minus capital) or (ii) if there is no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. Although SEACOR Holdings intended to make the distribution of SEACOR Marine Common Stock entirely from surplus, the Company cannot assure investors that a court will not later determine that some or all of the distribution to SEACOR Holdings shareholders was unlawful.
As a condition to the distribution, the SEACOR Holdings board of directors obtained, prior to the distribution, an opinion from a nationally recognized provider of such opinions that SEACOR Holdings and the Company would each be solvent and adequately capitalized immediately after the Spin-off. The Company cannot assure investors, however, that a court would reach the same conclusions set forth in the opinion in determining whether SEACOR Holdings or the Company were insolvent at the time of, or whether lawful funds were available for the Spin-off and the distribution to SEACOR Holdings shareholders.
Risk Factors Related to the Company’s Common Stock
The Company’s stock price may fluctuate significantly, and investors may not be able to sell their shares at an attractive price.
The trading price of the Company’s Common Stock may be volatile and subject to wide price fluctuations in response to various factors including:
market conditions in the broader stock market;
the Company’s capital structure and liquidity;
commodity prices and in particular prices of oil and natural gas;
actual or anticipated fluctuations in the Company’s quarterly financial condition and results of operations;
introduction of new equipment or services by the Company or its competitors;
issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations;
sales, or anticipated sales, of large blocks of the Company’s Common Stock;
additions or departures of key personnel;
the ability or willingness of OPEC to set and maintain production levels for oil;
oil and natural gas production levels by non-OPEC countries;
regulatory or political developments;
litigation and governmental investigations; and
changing economic conditions.
These and other factors may cause the market price and demand for the Company’s Common Stock to fluctuate substantially, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their shares of the Company’s Common Stock and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of the Company’s Common Stock. In addition, in the past, when the market price of a

30

Table of Contents

stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have sometimes instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of the Company’s stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against it, the Company could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of the Company’s management from its business.
An investor’s percentage of ownership in the Company may be diluted in the future.
As with any publicly traded company, an investor’s percentage ownership in the Company may be diluted in the future because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise, including equity awards that the Company has and will continue to grant to its directors, officers and employees. In addition, an investor’s percentage ownership in the Company will be diluted if any of the holders of the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes exercise their right to convert the principal amount of their outstanding notes, in whole or in part, into shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Holders of the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes are entitled to convert the principal amount of their outstanding notes into shares of the Company’s Common Stock at an initial conversion rate of 23.26 shares of the Company’s Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes through November 29, 2022. The Company has granted the holders of the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes certain registration rights to assist them with the sale of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of such notes. Any substantial issuance of the Company’s Common Stock, including Common Stock issuable upon the conversion of the 3.75% Convertible Senior Notes, could significantly affect the trading price of the Company’s Common Stock.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about the Company’s business, if they adversely change their recommendations regarding the Company’s stock or if the Company’s results of operations do not meet their expectations, the Company’s stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for the Company’s Common Stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about the Company or its business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of the Company or fail to publish reports on the Company regularly, the Company could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause its stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover the Company downgrade recommendations regarding the Company’s stock, or if the Company’s results of operations do not meet their expectations, the Company’s stock price could decline and such decline could be material.
For as long as the Company is “Emerging Growth Company,” it will be exempt from certain reporting requirements, including those relating to accounting standards and disclosure about its executive compensation, that apply to other public companies.
In April 2012, the JOBS Act was signed into law. The JOBS Act contains provisions that, among other things, relax certain reporting requirements for “Emerging Growth Companies,” including certain requirements relating to accounting standards and compensation disclosure. The Company is classified as an “Emerging Growth Company,” which is defined as a company with annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion, that has been a public reporting company for a period of less than five years, and that does not have a public float of $700 million or more in securities held by non-affiliated holders. For as long as the Company is an “Emerging Growth Company,” which may be up to five full fiscal years, unlike other public companies, unless the Company elects not to take advantage of applicable JOBS Act provisions, it will not be required to (i) provide an auditor’s attestation report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its system of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (ii) comply with any new or revised financial accounting standards applicable to public companies until such standards are also applicable to private companies under Section 102(b)(1) of the JOBS Act, (iii) comply with any new requirements adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”), such as requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report in which the auditor would be required to provide additional information about the audit and the financial statements of the issuer, (iv) comply with any new audit rules adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012 unless the SEC determines otherwise, (v) provide certain disclosure regarding executive compensation required of larger public companies or (vi) hold stockholder advisory and other votes on executive compensation. The Company cannot predict if investors will find its Common Stock less attractive if it chooses to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find the Company’s Common Stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for the Company’s Common Stock and its stock price may be more volatile.
As noted above, under the JOBS Act, “Emerging Growth Companies” can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until such time as those standards apply to private companies. The Company elected not to take advantage of such extended transition period, which election is irrevocable pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act.

31

Table of Contents

The Company is obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting and is subject to other requirements that will be burdensome and costly.
The Company has historically operated its business as a segment of a public company. As a separate company, it is required to file with the SEC annual and quarterly information and other reports that are specified in Section 13 of the Exchange Act. The Company is also required to ensure that it has the ability to prepare financial statements that are fully compliant with all SEC reporting requirements on a timely basis. In addition, the Company is subject to other reporting and corporate governance requirements, including the requirements of the NYSE, and certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which impose significant compliance obligations upon the Company. As a public company, the Company is required to:
prepare and distribute periodic public reports and other stockholder communications in compliance with its obligations under the federal securities laws and NYSE rules;
create or expand the roles and duties of its board of directors and committees of the board of directors;
institute more comprehensive financial reporting and disclosure compliance functions;
supplement its internal accounting and auditing function, including hiring additional staff with expertise in accounting and financial reporting for a public company;
enhance and formalize closing procedures at the end of the Company’s accounting periods;
enhance the Company’s internal audit function;
enhance the Company’s investor relations function;
establish new internal policies, including those relating to disclosure controls and procedures; and
involve and retain to a greater degree outside counsel and accountants in the activities listed above.
These changes require a significant commitment of additional resources, including increased auditing and legal fees and costs associated with hiring additional accounting and administrative staff. The Company may not be successful in fully and efficiently implementing these requirements and implementing them could materially adversely affect its business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 could have a material adverse effect on the Company.
The Company’s internal controls were initially developed when it was a subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings; however, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“Section 404”) requires the Company to establish effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Section 404 and to assess the effectiveness of such controls beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.
In connection with the preparation of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, SEACOR Holdings identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to (i) the review and approval of manual journal entries made to the general ledger and (ii) the review and documentation of assumptions, data and calculations used in the assessment of impairments of vessels and other-than-temporary impairment of equity method investments. Because the Company was previously a consolidated subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings and the Company’s system of internal controls over financial reporting was part of the SEACOR Holdings control environment, the Company was deemed to have material weaknesses as well.
While these previous material weaknesses were remediated, if the Company is unable to maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, it may be unable to report its financial information on a timely basis, may violate applicable stock exchange listing rules or suffer other adverse regulatory consequences and may breach the covenants under its credit facilities. There could also be a negative reaction in the price of the Company’s Common Stock due to a loss of investor confidence in the Company and the reliability of its financial statements. It cannot be assumed that the Company will not have another material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting in the future.
Moreover, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements because of its inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error, the circumvention or overriding of controls or fraud. Even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements. The existence of a material weakness could result in errors in the Company’s financial statements that could result in a restatement of financial statements, which could cause the Company to fail to meet its reporting obligations, lead to a loss of investor confidence and have a negative impact on the trading price of the Company’s Common Stock.

32

Table of Contents

Provisions in the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation, second amended and restated bylaws, and Delaware law may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of the Company or changes in the Company’s management and, therefore, may depress the trading price of its Common Stock.
The Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws include certain provisions that could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change of control of the Company or changes in its management, including, among other things:
restrictions on the ability of the Company’s stockholders to fill a vacancy on the board of directors;
restrictions related to the ability of non-U.S. citizens owning the Company’s Common Stock;
The Company’s ability to issue preferred stock with terms that the board of directors may determine, without stockholder approval, which could be used to significantly dilute the ownership of a hostile acquirer;
the absence of cumulative voting in the election of directors which may limit the ability of minority stockholders to elect directors; and
advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations, which may discourage or deter a potential acquirer from soliciting proxies to elect a particular slate of directors or otherwise attempting to obtain control of the Company.
These provisions in the Company’s second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of the Company that is in the best interest of its stockholders. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of the Company’s Common Stock if they are viewed as discouraging future takeover attempts.
The Company’s second amended and restated by-laws provide that, unless the Company otherwise consents in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery located in the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or employee of the Company to itself or to its stockholders, any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, or any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine.
The Company’s second amended and restated by-laws provide that, unless the Company otherwise consents in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery located in the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or employee of the Company to itself or to its stockholders, any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, or any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Company or its directors, officers, employees or other stockholders, which may discourage such lawsuits against the Company and its directors, officers, employees or other stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision in the Company’s second amended and restated by-laws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, the Company may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect its business and financial condition.
The Company does not expect to pay dividends to holders of its Common Stock.
The Company currently intends to retain its future earnings, if any, for the foreseeable future, to repay indebtedness and to fund the development and growth of its business. The Company does not intend to pay any dividends to holders of its Common Stock. As a result, capital appreciation in the price of the Company’s Common Stock, if any, will be investor’s only source of gain or income on an investment in the Company’s Common Stock.
ITEM 1B.
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.
PROPERTIES
Offshore support vessels are the principal physical properties owned by the Company as more fully described in “Item 1. Business.”

33

Table of Contents

ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company’s potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company’s estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
ITEM 4.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.

34

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
Officers of SEACOR Marine serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. The name, age and offices held by each of SEACOR Marine’s current executive officers are as follows:
Name
 
Age
 
Position
John Gellert
 
47
 
President and Chief Executive Officer since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Gellert was the Co-Chief Operating Officer of SEACOR Holdings since February 23, 2015 and from May 2004 to February 2015, Senior Vice President of SEACOR Holdings. In July 2005, Mr Gellert was appointed President of SEACOR Holdings’ Offshore Marine Services’ segment, a capacity in which he served until the Spin-off. Since June 1992, when Mr. Gellert joined SEACOR Holdings, until July 2005, he had various financial, analytical, chartering and marketing roles within SEACOR Holdings.
Matthew Cenac
 
52
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Cenac was the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SEACOR Holdings since February 23, 2015 and from August 2014 to February 2015, Mr. Cenac was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of SEACOR Holdings. From August 2005 to August 2015, Mr. Cenac was Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of SEACOR Holdings. From June 2003 to August 2005, Mr. Cenac was Corporate Controller of SEACOR Holdings.
Robert Clemons
 
47
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Clemons served as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SEACOR Holdings’ Americas division since 2007. Prior to 2007, Mr. Clemons was General Manager of SEACOR Holdings’ Offshore Marine Services’ West Africa region. Mr. Clemons has over 15 years of industry experience and holds degrees in business and law.
Jesus Llorca
 
42
 
Executive Vice President of Corporate Development since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Llorca was a Vice President of SEACOR Holdings since 2007. From 2004 to 2007, Mr. Llorca worked in the corporate group of SEACOR Holdings Inc. assisting the General Counsel. From 2000 to 2004, Mr. Llorca worked for Nabors Drilling. Mr. Llorca graduated from ICADE with degrees in law and business.
Anthony Weller
 
66
 
Senior Vice President and Managing Director of the International Division since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Weller served as Managing Director of SEACOR Holdings’ Offshore Marine Services’ International Division since 2009. Mr. Weller has over 40 years of industry experience and is a Master Mariner.
Clyde Camburn
 
59
 
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer since June 1, 2017. Prior to the Spin-off, Mr. Camburn was the Company’s Vice President of Finance since 2008. Mr. Camburn has over 30 years of industry experience and is a Chartered Certified Accountant in the United Kingdom.
Andrew H. Everett II
 
35
 
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since January 22, 2018. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Everett was an associate in the Global Corporate Group of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP from 2008 until 2018. Mr. Everett received his J.D. from Boston College Law School and B.S. from Bentley University.

35

Table of Contents

PART II
ITEM 5.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Market for the Company’s Common Stock
SEACOR Marine’s Common Stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on June 2, 2017 under the trading symbol “SMHI.” Set forth in the table below for the periods presented are the high and low sale prices for SEACOR Marine’s Common Stock.
 
 
HIGH
 
LOW
Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2018:
 
 
 
 
First Quarter (through March 20, 2018)
 
$
19.51

 
$
11.76

Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2017:
 
 
 
 
Second Quarter(1)
 
$
30.40

 
$
16.19

Third Quarter
 
$
20.48

 
$
11.93

Fourth Quarter
 
$
16.07

 
$
11.66

_____________________
(1)
Includes activity from the first day of trading beginning June 2, 2017 through June 30, 2017.
As of March 20, 2018, there were 149 holders of record of Common Stock.
The Company has not paid cash dividends to holders of its Common Stock since the Spin-off and currently does not intend on paying any such dividend for the foreseeable future. Any payment of future dividends will be at the discretion of SEACOR Marine’s Board of Directors and will depend upon, among other factors, the Company’s earnings, financial condition, current and anticipated capital requirements, plans for expansion, level of indebtedness and contractual restrictions, including the provisions of the Company’s other then-existing indebtedness. The payment of future cash dividends, if any, would be made only from assets legally available.
Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities
There were no shares of Common Stock purchased during the three months ended December 31, 2017.

36

Table of Contents

Performance Graph
Set forth in the graph below is a comparison of the cumulative total return that a hypothetical investor would have earned assuming the investment of $100 over the period commencing on June 2, 2017 in (i) the Common Stock of the Company, (ii) the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index (“S&P 500”) and (iii) a peer issuer group comprised of publicly-traded companies participating in the offshore marine industry. The information set forth in the graph below shall be considered “furnished” but not “filed” for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
chart-bfe110a917365e6fa69.jpg
 
 
 
 
Total Return Since,(1)
 
 
 
 
Jun 2, 2017
 
Jun 30, 2017
 
Jul 31, 2017
 
Aug 31, 2017
 
Sep 30, 2017
 
Oct 31, 2017
 
Nov 30, 2017
 
Dec 31, 2017
Company
 
100

 
99

 
71

 
62

 
76

 
69

 
59

 
57

S&P 500
 
100

 
99

 
102

 
102

 
104

 
106

 
110

 
111

Peer Issuers(2)
 
100

 
90

 
93

 
82

 
83

 
79

 
60

 
68

_____________________
(1)
Total returns assume the reinvestment of dividends.
(2)
The Peer Issuer group is comprised of publicly-traded companies selected on an industry basis. The Peer Issuer group data is calculated using the share prices for the following companies participating in the offshore marine industry: Bourbon Corp., Soldstad Farstad ASA, and DO ASA. While the Company considers Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Tidewater Inc. and Gulfmark Offshore, Inc. to also participate in the offshore marine industry and in the future will consider including them in its Peer Issuer group, each of these companies was excluded from the Peer Issuer group due to the significant effect of the refinancing of indebtedness and other financial restructurings (including Chapter 11 restructurings) on their respective share prices during the relevant time period.

37

Table of Contents

ITEM 6.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
The following table sets forth for the periods indicated (in thousands, except share data and statistics), selected historical consolidated and combined financial data for the Company. Such financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” included in Parts II and IV, respectively, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
For the years ended December 31,
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Operating Revenues
$
173,783

 
$
215,636

 
$
368,868

 
$
529,944

 
$
567,263

Operating Income (Loss)
$
(128,359
)
 
$
(174,888
)
 
$
(38,935
)
 
$
68,429

 
$
88,179

Other Income (Expenses):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net interest expense
$
(14,727
)
 
$
(5,550
)
 
$
(2,589
)
 
$
(5,782
)
 
$
(11,167
)
SEACOR Holdings management fees
(3,208
)
 
(7,700
)
 
(4,700
)
 
(16,219
)
 
(18,861
)
Derivative gains (losses), net
20,256

 
2,995

 
(2,766
)
 
(171
)
 
83

Other
9,015

 
(5,162
)
 
(3,586
)
 
13,296

 
(2,206
)
Other Income (Expense), Net
$
11,336

 
$
(15,417
)
 
$
(13,641
)
 
$
(8,876
)
 
$
(32,151
)
Net Income (Loss) attributable to SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc.
$
(32,901
)
 
$
(132,047
)
 
$
(27,249
)
 
$
48,076

 
$
49,717

Basic and Diluted Loss Per Common Share of SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc.
$
(1.87
)
 
$
(7.47
)
 
$
(1.54
)
 
N/A
 
N/A
Basic and Diluted Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
17,601,244

 
17,671,356

 
17,671,356

 
N/A
 
N/A
Statement of Cash Flows Data - provided by (used in):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating activities
$
34,739

 
$
(29,186
)
 
$
20,203

 
$
68,909

 
$
94,923

Investing activities
(32,262
)
 
(16,858
)
 
(88,203
)
 
93,036

 
(19,201
)
Financing activities
(11,730
)
 
15,590

 
115,101

 
(87,748
)
 
(73,491
)
Effects of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents
2,178

 
(2,479
)
 
(1,628
)
 
(2,281
)
 
462

Capital expenditures (included in investing activities)
(69,021
)
 
(100,884
)
 
(87,765
)
 
(83,513
)
 
(111,517
)
Other Operating Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average Rate Per Day Worked(1)
$
5,972

 
$
7,114

 
$
10,079

 
$
12,011

 
$
11,609

Utilization(1)
54
%
 
54
%
 
69
%
 
81
%
 
83
%
Days Available(1)
49,338

 
48,161

 
47,661

 
51,047

 
55,042

Fleet Count(2)
184

 
183

 
173

 
173

 
184

______________________
(1)
For a description of average rate per day worked, utilization and days available, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition” included in Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
(2)
As of period end.
 
As of December 31,
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, marketable securities and construction reserve funds
$
157,912

 
$
237,119

 
$
318,363

 
$
250,201

 
$
185,539

Total assets
1,008,504

 
1,015,119

 
1,208,150

 
1,167,537

 
1,229,336

Long-term debt, less current portion
292,041

 
217,805

 
181,340

 
29,238

 
32,694

Total SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc. stockholders’ equity
508,191

 
544,611

 
681,900

 
701,012

 
656,057



38

Table of Contents

ITEM 7.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations below presents the Company’s operating results for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and its financial condition as of December 31, 2017. Certain statements in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations constitute forward looking statements. See “Forward Looking Statements” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Overview
The Company provides global marine and support transportation services to offshore oil and natural gas exploration, development and production facilities worldwide. As of December 31, 2017, the Company and its joint ventures operated a diverse fleet of 184 support and specialty vessels, of which 141 were owned or leased-in, 29 were joint ventured, and 14 were managed on behalf of unaffiliated third parties. The primary users of the Company’s services are major integrated oil companies, large independent oil and natural gas exploration and production companies and emerging independent companies.
The Company’s fleet features offshore support and specialty vessels that deliver cargo and personnel to offshore installations; handle anchors and mooring equipment required to tether rigs to the seabed; tow rigs and assist in placing them on location and moving them between regions; provide construction, well workover and decommissioning support; and carry and launch equipment used underwater in drilling and well installation, maintenance and repair. Additionally, the Company’s vessels provide accommodations for technicians and specialists, safety support and emergency response services.
Trends Affecting the Offshore Marine Business
The market for offshore oil and natural gas drilling has historically been cyclical. Demand for offshore support vessels tends to be linked to the price of oil and natural gas as those prices significantly impact the Company’s customers’ exploration and drilling activity levels. Oil and natural gas prices tend to fluctuate based on many factors, including global economic activity, levels of reserves and production activity. Price levels for oil and natural gas have and will continue to in and of themselves influence demand for offshore marine services. In addition to the price of oil and natural gas, the availability of acreage, local tax incentives or disincentives, drilling moratoriums and other regulatory actions, and requirements for maintaining interests in leases affect activity in the offshore oil and natural gas industry. Factors that influence the level of offshore exploration and drilling activities include:
expectations as to future oil and natural gas commodity prices;
customer assessments of offshore drilling prospects compared with land-based opportunities, including newer or unconventional opportunities such as shale;
customer assessments of cost, geological opportunity and political stability in host countries;
worldwide demand for oil and natural gas;
the ability or willingness of OPEC to set and maintain production levels and pricing;
the level of oil and natural gas production by non-OPEC countries;
the relative exchange rates for the U.S. dollar; and
various United States and international government policies regarding exploration and development of oil and natural gas reserves.
Offshore oil and natural gas market conditions deteriorated beginning in the second half of 2014 and continued to deteriorate when oil prices hit a thirteen-year low of less than $27 per barrel (on the New York Mercantile Exchange) in February 2016. As of December 31, 2017, oil prices had increased from the February 2016 lows to a price of approximately $60 per barrel; however, the Company continued to experience difficult market conditions. These declines in oil and natural gas prices led to a general decrease in exploration and production activities, and a particular decrease in offshore drilling associated activity. The Company’s operating results have been negatively impacted as oil producing companies focused on cost reduction and cut capital spending budgets.
Certain macro drivers somewhat independent of oil and natural gas prices have the ability to continue to support the Company’s business, including: (i) underspending by oil producers during the current industry downturn leading to pent up demand for maintenance and growth capital expenditures; and (ii) improved extraction technologies. While alternative forms of energy may gain a foothold in the long term, for the foreseeable future, the Company believes demand for gasoline and oil will be sustained, as well as demand for electricity from natural gas.

39

Table of Contents

Low oil prices and the subsequent decline in offshore exploration have forced many operators in the industry to restructure or liquidate assets. The Company continues to closely monitor the delivery of newly built offshore support vessels to the industry-wide fleet, which is creating situations of oversupply, thereby further lowering the demand for the Company’s existing offshore support vessel fleet. A continuation of (i) low customer exploration and drilling activity levels, and (ii) the increasing size of the global offshore support vessel fleet as newly built vessels are placed into service could, in isolation or together, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
The Company adheres to a strategy of cold-stacking vessels (removing from active service) during periods of weak utilization in order to reduce the daily running costs of operating the fleet, primarily personnel, repairs and maintenance costs, as well as to defer some drydocking costs into future periods. The Company considers various factors in determining which vessels to cold-stack, including upcoming dates for regulatory vessel inspections and related docking requirements. The Company may maintain class certification on certain cold-stacked vessels, thereby incurring some drydocking costs while cold-stacked. Cold-stacked vessels are returned to active service when market conditions improve or management anticipates improvement, typically leading to increased costs for drydocking, personnel, repair and maintenance in the periods immediately preceding the vessels’ return to active service. Depending on market conditions, vessels with similar characteristics and capabilities may be rotated between active service and cold-stack. On an ongoing basis, the Company reviews its cold-stacked vessels to determine if any should be designated as retired and removed from service based on the vessel’s physical condition, the expected costs to reactivate and restore class certification, if any, and its viability to operate within current and projected market conditions. As of December 31, 2017, 37 of the Company’s 141 owned and leased-in in-service vessels were cold-stacked worldwide, and an additional three owned vessels and one leased-in vessel were retired and removed from service.
Certain Components of Revenues and Expenses
The Company operates its fleet in five principal geographic regions: the United States, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico; Africa, primarily in West Africa; the Middle East and Asia; Brazil, Mexico, Central and South America; and Europe, primarily in the North Sea. The Company’s vessels are highly mobile and regularly and routinely move between countries within a geographic region. In addition, the Company’s vessels are also redeployed among the geographic regions, subject to flag restrictions, as changes in market conditions dictate. The number and type of vessels operated, their rates per day worked and their utilization levels are the key determinants of the Company’s operating results and cash flows. Unless a vessel is cold-stacked, there is little reduction in daily running costs and, consequently, operating margins are most sensitive to changes in rates per day worked and utilization. The Company manages its fleet by utilizing a global network of shore side support, administrative and finance personnel.
Operating Revenues. The Company generates revenues by providing services to customers primarily pursuant to two different types of contractual arrangements: time charters and bareboat charters. Under a time charter, the Company provides a vessel to a customer and is responsible for all operating expenses, typically excluding fuel. Under a bareboat charter, the Company provides a vessel to a customer and the customer assumes responsibility for all operating expenses and all risks of operation. Vessel charters may range from several days to several years.
Time Charter Statistics. Time charter statistics are the key performance indicators for the Company’s time charter revenues. The rate per day worked is the ratio of total time charter revenues to the aggregate number of days worked. Utilization is the ratio of aggregate number of days worked to total available days for all vessels available for time charter. Unless vessels have been retired and removed from service, available days represents the total calendar days for which vessels available for time charter were owned or leased-in by the Company, whether marketed, under repair, cold-stacked or otherwise out-of-service.
Direct Operating Expenses. The aggregate cost of operating the Company’s fleet depends primarily on the size and asset mix of the fleet. Its direct operating costs and expenses, other than leased-in equipment expense, are grouped into the following categories:
personnel (primarily wages, benefits, payroll taxes, savings plans and travel for marine personnel);
repairs and maintenance (primarily routine repairs and maintenance and main engine overhauls that are performed in accordance with planned maintenance programs);
drydocking (primarily the cost of regulatory drydockings performed in accordance with applicable regulations);
insurance and loss reserves (primarily the cost of Hull and Machinery and Protection and Indemnity insurance premiums and loss deductibles);
fuel, lubes and supplies; and
other (communication costs, expenses incurred in mobilizing vessels between geographic regions, third party ship management fees, freight expenses, customs and importation duties and other).

40

Table of Contents

The Company expenses drydocking, engine overhaul and vessel mobilization costs as incurred. If a disproportionate number of drydockings, overhauls or mobilizations are undertaken in a particular fiscal year or quarter, operating expenses may vary significantly when compared with the prior year or prior quarter.
Direct Vessel Profit. Direct vessel profit (defined as operating revenues less operating expenses excluding leased-in equipment, “DVP”) is the Company’s measure of segment profitability when applied to reportable segments and a non-GAAP measure when applied to individual vessels, fleet categories or the combined fleet. DVP is a critical financial measure used by the Company to analyze and compare the operating performance of its individual vessels, fleet categories, regions and combined fleet, without regard to financing decisions (depreciation for owned vessels vs. leased-in expense for leased-in vessels). DVP is also useful when comparing the Company’s fleet’s performance against those of its competitors who may have differing fleet financing structures.
Leased-in Equipment. In addition to the Company’s owned fleet, it operates leased-in vessels from lessors under bareboat charter arrangements that currently expire between 2018 and 2021. Certain of these vessels were previously owned and subject to sale and leaseback transactions with their lessors.
Impairments. As a result of the difficult conditions experienced in the offshore oil and natural gas markets beginning in the second half of 2014 and the corresponding reductions in utilization and rates per day worked of its fleet, the Company identified indicators of impairment and recognized impairment charges primarily associated with its anchor handling towing supply fleet, its liftboat fleet, certain specialty vessels, vessels removed from service and goodwill. When reviewing its fleet for impairment, the Company groups vessels with similar operating and marketing characteristics, including cold-stacked vessels expected to return to active service, into vessel classes. All other vessels, including vessels retired and removed from service, are evaluated for impairment on a vessel by vessel basis.
During 2017, the Company recorded impairment charges of $27.5 million primarily associated with its anchor handling towing supply vessels, one leased-in supply vessel removed from service as it is not expected to be marketed prior to the expiration of its lease, one owned fast support vessel removed from service and two owned in-service specialty vessels. During 2016, the Company recorded impairment charges of $119.7 million primarily associated with its anchor handling towing supply fleet, its liftboat fleet and one specialty vessel. During 2015, the Company recorded impairment charges of $7.1 million primarily related to the suspended construction of two fast support vessels and the removal from service of one leased-in supply vessel. In addition, the Company recorded an impairment to goodwill of $13.4 million during 2015. Estimated fair values for the Company’s owned vessels were established by independent appraisers and other market data such as recent sales of similar vessels. For information regarding the Company’s vessel fair value measurement determinations, see “Note 10. Fair Value Measurements” in the audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If market conditions further decline from the depressed utilization and rates per day worked experienced over the last three years, fair values based on future appraisals could decline significantly.
The Company’s other vessel classes and other individual vessels in active service and cold-stacked status, for which no impairment was deemed necessary, have generally experienced a less severe decline in utilization and rates per day worked based on specific market factors. The market factors include vessels with more general utility to a broad range of customers (e.g., fast support vessels), vessels required for customers to meet regulatory mandates and operating under multiple year contracts (e.g., standby safety vessels) or vessels that service customers outside of the offshore oil and natural gas market (e.g., wind farm utility vessels).
For vessel classes and individual vessels with indicators of impairment but not recently impaired as of December 31, 2017, the Company has estimated that their future undiscounted cash flows exceed their current carrying values by more than 40%. The Company’s estimates of future undiscounted cash flows are highly subjective as utilization and rates per day worked are uncertain, including the timing of an estimated market recovery in the offshore oil and natural gas markets and the timing and cost of reactivating cold-stacked vessels. If market conditions decline further, changes in the Company’s expectations on future cash flows may result in recognizing additional impairment charges related to its long-lived assets in future periods.

41

Table of Contents

Consolidated Results of Operations
For the years ended December 31, the Company’s consolidated results of operations were as follows (in thousands, except statistics):
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Time Charter Statistics:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average Rates Per Day Worked (excluding wind farm)
$
8,481

 
 
 
$
10,059

 
 
 
$
13,659

 
 
Average Rates Per Day
$
5,972

 
 
 
$
7,114

 
 
 
$
10,079

 
 
Fleet Utilization (excluding wind farm)
45
%
 
 
 
47
%
 
 
 
64
%
 
 
Fleet Utilization
54
%
 
 
 
54
%
 
 
 
69
%
 
 
Fleet Available Days (excluding wind farm)
35,833

 
 
 
34,891

 
 
 
35,086

 
 
Fleet Available Days
49,338

 
 
 
48,161

 
 
 
47,661

 
 
Operating revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Time charter
$
160,545

 
92
 %
 
$
186,327

 
86
 %
186,327

$
330,890

 
90
 %
Bareboat charter
4,636

 
3
 %
 
8,833

 
4
 %
 
8,598

 
2
 %
Other marine services
8,602

 
5
 %
 
20,476

 
10
 %
 
29,380

 
8
 %
 
173,783

 
100
 %
 
215,636

 
100
 %
 
368,868

 
100
 %
Costs and Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Personnel
81,500

 
47
 %
 
95,144

 
44
 %
 
150,606

 
41
 %
Repairs and maintenance
27,655

 
16
 %
 
21,282

 
10
 %
 
36,371

 
10
 %
Drydocking
9,035

 
5
 %
 
7,821

 
4
 %
 
17,781

 
5
 %
Insurance and loss reserves
6,524

 
4
 %
 
5,682

 
2
 %
 
9,898

 
3
 %
Fuel, lubes and supplies
12,032

 
7
 %
 
12,088

 
6
 %
 
20,762

 
5
 %
Other
9,905

 
6
 %
 
7,331

 
3
 %
 
18,045

 
5
 %
Leased-in equipment
12,948

 
7
 %
 
17,577

 
8
 %
 
22,509

 
6
 %
 
159,599

 
92
 %
 
166,925

 
77
 %
 
275,972

 
75
 %
Administrative and general
56,217

 
32
 %
 
49,308

 
23
 %
 
53,085

 
14
 %
Depreciation and amortization
62,779

 
36
 %
 
58,069

 
27
 %
 
61,729

 
17
 %
 
278,595

 
160
 %
 
274,302

 
127
 %
 
390,786

 
106
 %
Losses on Asset Dispositions and Impairments, Net
(23,547
)
 
(14
)%
 
(116,222
)
 
(54
)%
 
(17,017
)
 
(5
)%
Operating Loss
(128,359
)
 
(74
)%
 
(174,888
)
 
(81
)%
 
(38,935
)
 
(11
)%
Other Income (Expense), Net
11,336

 
7
 %
 
(15,417
)
 
(7
)%
 
(13,641
)
 
(4
)%
Loss Before Income Tax Benefit and Equity in Earnings (Losses) of 50% or Less Owned Companies
(117,023
)
 
(67
)%
 
(190,305
)
 
(88
)%
 
(52,576
)
 
(15
)%
Income Tax Benefit
(74,406
)
 
(43
)%
 
(63,469
)
 
(29
)%
 
(16,973
)
 
(5
)%
Loss Before Equity in Earnings (Losses) of 50% or Less Owned Companies
(42,617
)
 
(24
)%
 
(126,836
)
 
(59
)%
 
(35,603
)
 
(10
)%
Equity in Earnings (Losses) of 50% or Less Owned Companies
4,077

 
2
 %
 
(6,314
)
 
(3
)%
 
8,757

 
2
 %
Net Loss
(38,540
)
 
(22
)%
 
(133,150
)
 
(62
)%
 
(26,846
)
 
(8
)%
Net Income (Loss) attributable to Noncontrolling Interests in Subsidiaries
(5,639
)
 
(3
)%
 
(1,103
)
 
(1
)%
 
403

 
 %
Net Loss attributable to SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc.
$
(32,901
)
 
(19
)%
 
$
(132,047
)
 
(61
)%
 
$
(27,249
)
 
(8
)%

42

Table of Contents

The following tables summarize the operating results and property and equipment for the Company’s reportable segments for the periods indicated (in thousands, except statistics):
 
United States (primarily Gulf of Mexico)
 
Africa (primarily West Africa)
 
Middle East and Asia
 
Brazil, Mexico, Central and South America
 
Europe (primarily North Sea)
 
Total
For the year ended December 31, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Time Charter Statistics:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average Rates Per Day
$
8,454

 
$
10,284

 
$
6,873

 
$
16,393

 
$
4,436

 
$
5,972

Fleet Utilization
14
%
 
69
%
 
59
%
 
32
%
 
82
%
 
54
%
Fleet Available Days
15,784

 
4,632

 
8,302

 
563

 
20,057

 
49,338

Operating Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Time charter
$
18,079

 
$
32,866

 
$
33,410

 
$
2,977

 
$
73,213

 
$
160,545

Bareboat charter

 

 

 
4,636

 

 
4,636

Other
4,217

 
1,080

 
474

 
552

 
2,279

 
8,602

 
22,296

 
33,946

 
33,884

 
8,165

 
75,492

 
173,783

Direct Costs and Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Personnel
15,621

 
13,419

 
16,883

 
809

 
34,768

 
81,500

Repairs and maintenance
3,594

 
5,957

 
9,037

 
274

 
8,793

 
27,655

Drydocking
1,828

 
2,180

 
968

 

 
4,059

 
9,035

Insurance and loss reserves
3,286

 
677

 
1,444

 
316

 
801

 
6,524

Fuel, lubes and supplies
1,485

 
2,815

 
3,727

 
223

 
3,782

 
12,032

Other
249

 
3,319

 
5,240

 
117

 
980

 
9,905

 
26,063

 
28,367

 
37,299

 
1,739

 
53,183

 
146,651

Direct Vessel Profit (Loss)
$
(3,767
)

$
5,579


$
(3,415
)

$
6,426


$
22,309


27,132

Other Costs and Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating: