NVGS Navigator Holdings Ltd

PART I

EBITDA is included herein because it is a basis upon which we assess our financial performance and because we believe that it presents useful information to investors regarding a company’s ability to service and/or incur indebtedness and it is frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in the evaluation of companies in our industry.

EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation, or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported under U.S. GAAP. Some of these limitations are:

Because of these limitations, EBITDA should not be considered a measure of discretionary cash available to us to invest in the growth of our business.

2

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of net income to EBITDA for the periods presented:

The following table represents a reconciliation of TCE rate to operating revenue, the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP for the periods presented:

3

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

You should carefully consider the following risk factors together with all of the other information included in this annual report in evaluating an investment in our common stock. If any of the following risks were actually to occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

Charter rates for liquefied gas carriers are cyclical in nature.

The international liquefied gas carrier market is cyclical with attendant volatility in terms of profitability, charter rates and vessel values. The degree of charter rate volatility among different types of liquefied gas carriers has varied widely. Because many factors influencing the supply of, and demand for, vessel capacity are unpredictable, the timing, direction and degree of changes in the international liquefied gas carrier market are also unpredictable.

Future growth in the demand for our services will depend on changes in supply and demand, economic growth in the world economy and demand for liquefied gas product transportation relative to changes in worldwide fleet capacity. Adverse economic, political, social or other developments, including the return of the turmoil in the global financial system and economic crisis, could have a material adverse effect on world economic growth and thus on our business and results of operations.

The charter rates we receive will be dependent upon, among other things:

4

Adverse changes in any of the foregoing factors could have an adverse effect on our revenues, profitability, liquidity, cash flow and financial position.

We are partially dependent on voyage charters in the spot market, and any decrease in spot charter rates in the future may adversely affect our earnings.

We currently own and operate a fleet of 38 vessels. Of those, 12 vessels are employed in the spot market, exposing us to fluctuations in spot market charter rates.

Although spot chartering is common in our industry, the spot market may fluctuate significantly. The successful operation of our vessels in the competitive spot market depends upon, among other things, obtaining profitable spot charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent traveling in ballast and to pick up cargo. If future spot charter rates decline, we may be unable to operate our vessels trading in the spot market profitably or meet our obligations, including payments on indebtedness. Furthermore, as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage or multiple voyages which may last up to several weeks or months, during periods in which spot charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases.

We may be unable to charter our vessels at attractive rates, which would have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Payments under our charters represent substantially all of our operating cash flow. Our time charters expire on a regular basis. If demand for liquefied gas carriers has declined at the time that our charters expire, we may not be able to charter our vessels at favorable rates or at all. If more vessels are added to the overall fleet through newbuilding programs, charter rates may reduce. In addition, while longer-term charters would become more attractive to us at a time when charter rates are declining, our customers may not want to enter into longer-term charters in such an environment. As a result, if our charters expire or newbuild vessels are delivered at a time when charter rates are declining, we may have to accept charters with lower rates or shorter terms than would be

5

desirable. Furthermore, we may be unable to charter our vessels immediately after the expiration of their charters resulting in periods of non-utilization for our vessels. Our inability to charter our vessels at favorable rates or terms or at all would adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results. Please read “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet.”

If the demand for liquefied gases and the seaborne transportation of liquefied gases does not continue to grow, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Our growth depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for liquefied gases and the seaborne transportation of liquefied gases, each of which could be adversely affected by a number of factors, such as:

Reduced demand for liquefied gases and the seaborne transportation of liquefied gases would have a material adverse effect on our future growth and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

The expected growth in the supply of petrochemical gases, including ethane and ethylene, available for seaborne transport may not materialize, which would deprive us of the opportunity to obtain premium charters for petrochemical cargoes.

Charter rates for petrochemical gas cargoes can be higher than those for LPG, with charter rates for ethylene historically commanding an additional premium. While we believe that growth in production at petrochemical production facilities and regional supply and pricing imbalances will create opportunities for us to transport petrochemical gas cargoes, including ethane and ethylene, factors that are beyond our control may cause the supply of petrochemical gases available for seaborne transport to remain constant or even decline. For example, a significant portion of any increased production of petrochemicals in export regions may be used to supply local facilities that use petrochemicals as a feedstock rather than exported via seaborne trade. If the supply of petrochemical gases available for seaborne transport does not increase, we will not have the opportunity to obtain the premium charter rates associated with petrochemical gas cargoes, including ethane and ethylene, and our expectations regarding the growth of our business may not be met.

6

The market values of our vessels may fluctuate significantly. This could cause us to incur a loss, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

The market value of liquefied gas carriers fluctuates. While the market values of our vessels have declined as a result of the recent market slowdown, they still remain subject to a potential significant further decline depending on a number of factors including, among other things: shipyard capacity and the cost of newbuildings, general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping industry, prevailing charter rates, competition from other shipping companies, other modes of transportation, other types, sizes and age of vessels and applicable governmental regulations.

In addition, when vessel prices are considered to be low, companies not usually involved in shipping may make speculative vessel orders, thereby increasing the supply of vessel capacity, satisfying demand sooner and potentially suppressing charter rates.

Also, if the book value of a vessel is impaired due to unfavorable market conditions or a vessel is sold at a price below its book value, we would incur a loss that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Furthermore each of our loan agreements and bond agreement have covenants relating to asset values, whereby if vessel values were to reduce to below those set out in the covenants, a breach would occur and cause the loan amounts to be immediately repayable. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Over the long term, we will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to preserve the operating capacity of, and to grow, our fleet.

We must make substantial capital expenditures over the long term to maintain the operating capacity and expansion of our fleet in order to preserve our capital base.

We estimate that drydocking expenditures can cost up to $2.0 million per vessel per drydocking, although these expenditures could vary significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year and could increase as a result of changes in:

Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future debt or equity offerings in order to finance the expansion of our fleet may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to obtain the funds for future capital expenditures could limit our ability to expand our fleet. Even if we are successful in obtaining

7

necessary funds, the terms of such financings may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage and issuing additional equity securities may result in significant shareholder dilution. Please read “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Liquidity and Cash Needs.”

We may be unable to make, or realize the expected benefits from, acquisitions and the failure to successfully implement our growth strategy through acquisitions could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our growth strategy includes newbuildings or selectively acquiring existing liquefied gas carriers and investing in complementary assets. Factors such as competition from other companies, many of which have significantly greater financial resources than we do, could reduce our acquisition and investment opportunities or cause us to pay higher prices.

Any existing vessel or newbuilding we acquire may not be profitable at or after the time of acquisition or delivery and may not generate cash flow sufficient to cover the cost of acquisition. Market conditions at the time of delivery of any newbuildings may be such that charter rates are not favorable and the revenue generated by such vessels is not sufficient to cover their purchase prices.

In addition, our acquisition and investment growth strategy exposes us to risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results, including risks that we may:

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

8

From time to time, we may selectively pursue new strategic acquisitions or ventures we believe to be complementary to our seaborne transportation services and any strategic transactions that are a departure from our historical operations could present unforeseen challenges and result in a competitive disadvantage relative to our more-established competitors.

We may pursue strategic acquisitions or investment opportunities we believe to be complementary to our core business of owning and operating handysize liquefied gas carriers and the transportation of LPG, petrochemical gases and ammonia. Such ventures may include, but are not limited to operating liquefied gas carriers in different size categories, expanding the types of cargo we carry and/or ventures or facilities involved in the export, distribution, mixing and/or storage of liquefied gas cargoes. While we have general knowledge and experience in the seaborne transportation services industry, we have no meaningful operating history outside of the ownership and operation of liquefied gas carriers and the transportation of LPG, petrochemical gases and ammonia.

Any investments we pursue outside of our historical provision of seaborne transportation services could result in unforeseen operating difficulties and may require significant financial and managerial resources that would otherwise be available for the ongoing operation and growth of our fleet.

We may face several factors that could impair our ability to successfully execute these acquisitions or investments including, among others, the following:

Any of these factors could delay any such acquisitions or investment opportunities and could increase our projected capital costs. If we are unable to successfully integrate acquisitions or investments into our historical business, any costs incurred in connection with these projects may not be recoverable. If we experience delays, cost overruns, or changes in market circumstances, we may not be able to demonstrate the commercial viability of such acquisitions or investment opportunities or achieve the intended economic benefits, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to realize the expected benefits from our proposed investment in an ethylene marine export terminal in the U.S. Gulf.

There are a number of contingencies that could impact the ability to complete the ethylene marine terminal on a timely basis or at all, including but not limited to the ability to receive on a timely basis regulatory approval to construct and operate the marine terminal. We do not have committed financing for our investment in the marine terminal. If our expectations with respect to the construction of the terminal or the financing of our investment in the terminal are not realized, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Operations outside of the United States expose us to political, governmental and economic instability, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our operations are primarily conducted outside of the United States, and may be affected by economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we engage in business or where our vessels are registered. Any disruption caused by these conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. We derive some of our revenues from transporting gas cargoes from, to and within politically unstable regions. Conflicts in these regions have included attacks on ships and other efforts to disrupt shipping. In addition, vessels operating in some of these regions have been subject to piracy. Hostilities or other political

9

instability in regions where we operate or may operate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition, tariffs, trade embargoes and other economic sanctions by the United States or other countries against countries where we engage in business as a result of terrorist attacks, hostilities or other events may limit trading activities with those countries, which could also harm our business. Finally, a government could requisition one or more of our vessels, which is most likely during a war or national emergency. Any such requisition would cause a loss of the vessel and would harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

If our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, our reputation and the market for our securities could be adversely affected.

Although no vessels owned or operated by us have called on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and other authorities or countries identified by the U.S. government or other authorities as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, in the future our vessels may call on ports in these countries from time to time on charterers’ instructions in violation of contractual provisions that prohibit them from doing so. Sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact the market for our common shares, our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. Our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation or the ability of our charters to meet their obligations to us or result in fines, penalties or sanctions.

The geopolitical risks associated with chartering vessels to state-owned corporations are significant and could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., or “PDVSA,” is a state-owned corporation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. PDVSA currently employs two of our vessels. PT Pertamina (Persero), or “Pertamina,” is a state-owned corporation of the Republic of Indonesia. Pertamina currently employs three of our vessels. Collectively, our charters with PDVSA and Pertamina generated more than 10% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017. Our vessels that are chartered to Pertamina and PDVSA are subject to various risks, including (i) loss of revenue, property or equipment as a result of expropriation, nationalization, changes in laws, exchange controls, war, insurrection, civil unrest, strikes or other political risks, (ii) being subject to foreign laws and legal systems and the exclusive jurisdiction of Venezuelan or Indonesian courts or tribunals and (iii) the unilateral renegotiation of contracts and changes in laws and policies governing the operations of foreign companies in Venezuela or Indonesia. In addition, if a contract dispute arises it may be difficult for us to enforce our contractual rights against either Pertamina or PDVSA, as it may claim sovereign immunity against judgments from foreign courts. As a result, we are subject to significant economic uncertainty associated with doing business with state-owned corporations. We cannot predict how government policies may change under the current or any future Venezuelan or Indonesian administration, and future government policies could have a substantial adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Operating our vessels in sanctioned areas or chartering our vessels to sanctioned individuals or entities would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

We have obligations and believe we comply fully with the various sanctions regimes around the world, not just the sanctions authorities of the United States, but also the relevant departments within the United Nations,

10

European Union and other individual countries, as well as governmental institutions and agencies of those countries. Our current 38 vessels transport LPG and other liquefied petrochemical gases throughout the globe and we are vigilant in ensuring our vessels do not call to countries or ports or trade with persons that may be on any lists which restrict or inhibit such trade or relationship. Any actual or alleged violations could materially damage our reputation and ability to do business.

Furthermore, if any of our customers were to become a sanctioned entity, the charterparty would end immediately and become void which could lead to one or more vessels being redelivered to us, ending what may be a long-term charter commitment.

We depend to a significant degree upon third-party managers to provide technical management services for our fleet.

We subcontract the majority of the technical management of our fleet, including crewing, maintenance and repair, to third-party technical managers, Northern Marine Management Ltd., or “NMM,” and Thome Ship Management Pte Ltd, or “Thome.” Our technical managers, in turn, contract with one or more manning agents for the provision of crews for our vessels. Although we have subcontracted the technical management of portions of our fleet to NMM since 2009 and Thome since 2015, our agreements with them are subject to annual renewal and may be terminated by us or our technical managers with three months’ notice. The loss of services of either or both of our technical managers or a failure to perform their obligations could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Although we may have rights against our technical managers if they were to default on their obligations, shareholders will have no recourse against our technical managers. In addition, if we were to lose the services of one or all of our technical managers, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to find replacement technical managers on terms as favorable as those currently in place.

The ability of our technical managers to continue providing services for our benefit will depend in part on their financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair our technical managers’ financial strength. Because our technical managers are privately held, it is unlikely that information about their financial strength will be available. As a result, we might have little advance warning of problems that affect our technical managers, even though those problems could have a material adverse effect on us. Our inability to replace our technical managers or to successfully take over and perform the technical management of the vessels being managed by our technical managers would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

In 2016, we began providing in-house technical management, for the first time, for certain vessels in our fleet.

We currently provide in-house technical management for nine of our vessels. Providing in-house technical management for any vessel in our fleet may impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff. Further, because we had no experience providing technical management in-house prior to 2016, our management may encounter challenges as we develop and refine our technical management system.

Some charterers may not accept our in-house technical managers and, consequently, may not charter our vessels. Furthermore, some charterers and port terminals may require the crew of our fleet to have a minimum of two years of experience with our vessel’s on-board safety management systems. We provide in-house technical management for a vessel in our fleet only if the charterer so agrees, but charterers may change and a new charterer may refuse to charter a vessel in our fleet if it is managed by our in-house technical managers. Similarly, certain ports may not allow our vessels that are managed by technical in-house managers into their terminals to load or discharge cargoes. If we are not successful with respect to any vessel for which we may provide technical management in-house, our reputation and ability to charter vessels may be negatively impacted, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

11

A fluctuation in fuel prices may adversely affect our charter rates for time charters and our cost structure for voyage charters and COAs.

The price and supply of bunker fuel are unpredictable and fluctuate based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil, actions by members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns and regulations. A significant portion of our revenues are generated by time charters, the terms of which require our customers to incur the cost of bunker fuel. Bunker fuel prices have remained significantly below the highs of a few years ago and if the fuel price increases our customers may be less willing in the future to enter into charters under which they bear the full risk of price increases or may shorten the periods for which they are willing to make such commitments. Under voyage charters and COAs, we bear the cost of bunker fuel used to power our vessels. In the future, we may experience an increase in bunker fuel prices that would correspondingly increase our voyage expenses under each of our voyages charters and COAs, which would adversely affect our profitability.

Changes in fuel, or bunkers, prices may adversely affect our results of operation.

Fuel, or bunkers, is a significant expense for our vessels employed in the spot market and can have a significant impact on earnings. For our vessels employed on time charters, the charterer is generally responsible for the cost and supply of fuel; however, such cost may affect the charter rates we are able to negotiate for our vessels. Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by OPEC and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. In addition, the high sulphur fuel type we currently use on our vessels is subject to change as a consequence of International Maritime Organisation regulations in January 2020 and prices of the new lower sulphur fuel or any alternative may increase significantly which may reduce our profitability and adversely affect our results of operation.

The required drydocking of our vessels could have a more significant adverse impact on our revenues than we anticipate, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

The drydocking of our vessels requires significant capital expenditures and results in loss of revenue while our vessels are off-hire. Any significant increase in the number of days of off-hire due to such drydocking or in the costs of any repairs could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Although we attempt to ensure that no more than one vessel will be out of service at any given time, this may not always be possible because we may underestimate the time required to drydock our vessels, or unanticipated problems may arise.

Our operating costs are likely to increase in the future as our vessels age, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel. As our vessels age, we will incur increased costs. Older vessels are typically less fuel-efficient and more costly to maintain than newer vessels due to improvements in engine technology. If equipment on board becomes obsolete and it is not cost effective to repair it, such equipment would have to be replaced. Cargo insurance rates increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations, including environmental, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may also require expenditures for alterations, or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels to comply. These laws or regulations may also restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage or limit their operation in certain geographic regions. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their expected useful lives.

12

The loss of or inability to operate any of our vessels would result in a significant loss of revenues and cash flow which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

We do not carry loss of hire insurance. If, at any time, we cannot operate any of our vessels due to mechanical problems, lack of seafarers to crew a vessel, prolonged drydocking periods, loss of certification, the loss of any charter or otherwise, our business, financial condition and operating results will be materially adversely affected. In the worst case, we may not receive any revenues because of the inability to operate any of our vessels, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition.

An economic downturn could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Future adverse economic conditions may lead to a decline in our customers’ operations or ability to pay for our services, which could result in decreased demand for our vessels. There has historically been a strong link between the development of the world economy and demand for energy, including liquefied gases. The world economy is currently facing a number of challenges. An extended period of adverse development in the outlook for European countries could reduce the overall demand for liquefied gases and have a negative impact on our customers. These potential developments, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Furthermore, a future economic slowdown could have an impact on our customers and/or suppliers including, among other things, causing them to fail to meet their obligations to us. Similarly, a future economic slowdown could affect lenders participating in our secured term loan and revolving credit facilities, making them unable to fulfill their commitments and obligations to us. Any reductions in activity owing to such conditions or failure by our customers, suppliers or lenders to meet their contractual obligations to us could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Due to our lack of diversification, adverse developments in the seaborne liquefied gas transportation business could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

We rely exclusively on the cash flow generated from vessels that operate in the seaborne liquefied gas transportation business. Unlike many other shipping companies, which have vessels that can carry drybulk, crude oil and oil products, we depend exclusively on the transport of LPG, petrochemicals and ammonia. Due to our lack of diversification, an adverse development in the international liquefied gas shipping industry would have a significantly greater impact on our business, financial condition and operating results than it would if we maintained more diverse assets or lines of business.

If in the future our business activities involve countries, entities and individuals that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. or other governments, we could be subject to enforcement action and our reputation and the market for our common stock could be adversely affected.

The tightening of U.S. sanctions in recent years has affected non-U.S. companies. In particular, sanctions against Iran have been significantly expanded. In 2012 the U.S. signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“TRA”), which placed further restrictions on the ability of non-U.S. companies to do business or trade with Iran and Syria. A major provision in the TRA is that issuers of securities must disclose to the SEC in their annual and quarterly reports filed after February 6, 2013 if the issuer or “any affiliate” has “knowingly” engaged in certain activities involving Iran during the timeframe covered by the report. This disclosure obligation is broad in scope in that it requires the reporting of activity that would not be considered a violation of U.S. sanctions as well as violative conduct, and is not subject to a materiality threshold. The SEC publishes these disclosures on its website and the President of the United States must initiate an investigation in response to all disclosures. It should be noted that the U.S. and various other nations entered into a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) with Iran that provides for phased sanctions relief. On January 16,

13

2016, following verification that Iran had satisfied its commitments under the JCPOA, the U.S. lifted its nuclear-related “secondary” sanctions and the European Union also took action to lift its sanctions. As a result of sanctions relief, non-U.S. persons will be able to engage in business with Iran. Sanctions relief will not impact the SEC reporting requirements discussed above.

In addition to the sanctions against Iran, the U.S. also has sanctions that target other countries, entities and individuals. These sanctions have certain extraterritorial effects that need to be considered by non-U.S. companies. It should also be noted that other governments have implemented versions of U.S. sanctions. We believe that we are in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations imposed by the U.S., the United Nations or European Union countries and intend to maintain such compliance. However, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in our common stock. Additionally, some investors may decide to divest their interest, or not to invest, in our common stock simply because we may do business with companies that do business in sanctioned countries. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may also be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

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

We may operate in a number of countries throughout the world, including countries known to have a reputation for corruption. We are committed to doing business in accordance with applicable anti-corruption laws and have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics. We are subject, however, to the risk that we, our affiliated entities or our or their respective officers, directors, employees and agents may take actions determined to be in violation of anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and the Bribery Act 2010 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Any such violation could result in substantial fines, sanctions, civil and/or criminal penalties, curtailment of operations in certain jurisdictions, and might adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, actual or alleged violations could damage our reputation and ability to do business. Furthermore, detecting, investigating, and resolving actual or alleged violations is expensive and could consume significant time and attention of our senior management.

A cyber-attack could materially disrupt our business.

We rely on information technology systems and networks in our operations and the administration of our business. Our operations could be targeted by individuals or groups seeking to sabotage or disrupt our information technology systems and networks, or to steal data. A successful cyber-attack could materially disrupt our operations, including the safety of our operations, or lead to unauthorized release of information or alteration of information on our systems. Any such attack or other breach of our information technology systems could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

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

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo, cargo receivers and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against that vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lienholder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums to have the arrest lifted.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any

14

vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against all of the vessels in our fleet for claims relating to only one of our ships. The arrest of any of our vessels would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

We may experience operational problems with vessels that reduce revenue and increase costs.

Liquefied gas carriers are complex vessels and their operation is technically challenging. Marine transportation operations are subject to mechanical risks and problems. Operational problems may lead to loss of revenue or higher than anticipated operating expenses or require additional capital expenditures. Any of these results could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

A shortage of qualified officers makes it more difficult to crew our vessels and increases our operating costs. If a shortage were to develop, it could impair our ability to operate and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our liquefied gas carriers require technically skilled officer staff with specialized training. As the world liquefied gas carrier fleet and the liquefied natural gas, or “LNG,” carrier fleet continue to grow, the demand for such technically skilled officers has increased and could lead to a shortage of such personnel. If our crewing managers were to be unable to employ such technically skilled officers, they would not be able to adequately staff our vessels and effectively train crews. The development of a deficit in the supply of technically skilled officers or an inability of our crewing managers to attract and retain such qualified officers could impair our ability to operate and increase the cost of crewing our vessels and, thus, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. Please read “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Crewing and Staff.”

Compliance with safety and other vessel requirements imposed by classification societies may be very costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. Our vessels are currently enrolled with, Lloyd’s Register, DNV GL Group AS or the American Bureau of Shipping. All of our vessels have been awarded International Safety Management certification.

As part of the certification process, a vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Eight of the vessels in our existing fleet are on a planned maintenance system, or “PMS,” approval, and as such the classification society attends on-board once every year to verify that the maintenance of the on-board equipment is done correctly. The remaining ships are operating continuous machinery surveys. All of the vessels in our fleet have been qualified within its respective classification society for drydocking once every five years, subject to an intermediate underwater survey done using an approved diving company in the presence of a surveyor from the classification society. When gas carriers reach an age of 15 years, they must undergo hull / bottom surveys twice in each five-year cycle, with a maximum of 30 months between each underwater survey.

If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, the vessel will be unable to trade between ports and will be unemployable. This would adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our fleet includes sets of sister ships, which have identical specifications. As a result, any latent design or equipment defect discovered in one of our sister ships will likely affect all of the other vessels.

Our vessels consist of a number of sets of sister ships, ranging from two vessels to six vessels. The vessels in each set of sister ships were built based on standard designs and are uniform in all material respects. Any latent

15

design defects in one of the sister ships would likely affect all of its respective sister ships. We cannot assure you that latent defects will not be discovered in any of these vessels. In addition, all vessels that are sister ships have the same or similar equipment as all other such vessels. As a result, any equipment defect discovered in one vessel may affect one or all of the vessels that are sister ships with that vessel. Any disruptions in the operation of the vessels in our fleet, resulting from any such defects could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Delays in deliveries of newbuildings or acquired vessels, or deliveries of vessels with significant defects, could harm our operating results and lead to the termination of any related charters that may be entered into prior to their delivery.

The delivery of any newbuildings we may order or of any vessels we agree to acquire in the future could be delayed, which would delay our receipt of revenues under any future charters we enter into for the vessels. In addition, under some of the charters we may enter into for newbuildings, if our delivery of a vessel to the customer is delayed, we may be required to pay liquidated damages in amounts equal to or, under some charters, almost double the hire rate during the delay. For prolonged delays, the customer may terminate the time charter, resulting in loss of revenues. The delivery of any newbuilding with substantial defects could have similar consequences.

Our receipt of newbuildings could be delayed because of many factors, including:

We do not carry delay of delivery insurance to cover any losses that are not covered by delay penalties in our construction contracts. As a result, if delivery of a vessel is materially delayed, it could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our growth depends on our ability to expand relationships with existing customers and obtain new customers, for which we will face substantial competition.

The process of obtaining new charters is highly competitive, generally involves an intensive screening process and competitive bids, and often extends for several months. Contracts are awarded based upon a variety of factors, including:

16

Our ability to obtain new customers will depend upon a number of factors, including our ability to:

We expect substantial competition for providing transportation services from a number of experienced companies. As a result, we may be unable to expand our relationships with existing customers or to obtain new customers on a profitable basis, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

The marine transportation industry is subject to substantial environmental and other regulations, which may limit our operations and increase our expenses.

Our operations are affected by extensive and changing environmental protection laws and other regulations and international treaties and conventions, including those relating to equipping and operating vessels and vessel safety. These regulations include the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or “OPA 90,” the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and regulations of the International Maritime Organization, or “IMO,” including the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as from time to time amended and generally referred to as the CLC, the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1975, as from time to time amended and generally referred to as MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of 1973, the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, as from time to time amended and generally referred to as SOLAS, the IMO International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, as from time to time amended, the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or the “ISM Code,” the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, generally referred to as the Bunker Convention, and the European Union 2015 Regulation on the monitoring, reporting, and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. We have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, substantial expenses in complying with these laws and regulations, including expenses for vessel modifications and changes in operating procedures. Additional laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business or further increase costs, which could harm our business. For example, under MARPOL Annex VI, fuels used by vessels in all seas may contain no more than 0.5% sulfur effective January 1, 2020. In addition, failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of operations. We may become subject to additional laws and regulations if we enter into new markets or trades.

In addition, we believe that the heightened environmental, quality and security concerns of the public, regulators, insurance underwriters and charterers will generally lead to additional regulatory requirements, including enhanced risk assessment and security requirements, greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels in the marine transportation markets and possibly restrictions on the emissions of greenhouse gases from the

17

operation of vessels. These requirements are likely to add incremental costs to our operations and the failure to comply with these requirements may affect the ability of our vessels to obtain and, possibly, collect on insurance or to obtain the required certificates for entry into the different ports where we operate.

Please read “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Environmental and Other Regulation” for a more detailed discussion on these topics.

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

Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries and the IMO have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emission from vessel emissions. These regulatory measures may include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. Additionally, a treaty may be adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. Compliance with changes in laws and regulations relating to climate change could increase our costs of operating and maintaining our vessels and could require us to make significant financial expenditures that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about the environmental impact of climate change, may also have an effect on demand for our services. For example, increased regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil and gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Marine transportation is inherently risky. An incident involving significant loss of product or environmental contamination by any of our vessels could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition and operating results.

Our vessels and their cargoes and the LPG and petrochemical production and terminal facilities that we service are at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as:

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

18

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

Our operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations.

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter rates. The liquefied gas carrier market is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of propane and butane for heating during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. While our time charters typically provide a uniform monthly fee over the term of the charter, to the extent any of our time charters expires during the relatively weaker fiscal quarters ending June 30 and September 30, we may have difficultly re-chartering those vessels at similar rates or at all.

Competition from more technologically advanced liquefied gas carriers could reduce our charter hire income and the value of our vessels.

The charter rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes fuel economy, speed and the ability to be loaded and unloaded quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter ports, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. Physical life is related to the original design and construction, maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new liquefied gas carriers are built that are more efficient or flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced liquefied gas carriers could adversely affect the charter rates we receive for our vessels once their current charters are terminated and the resale value of our vessels. As a result, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Acts of piracy on any of our vessels or on ocean going vessels could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia, and West Africa. If such piracy attacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being named on the Joint War Committee Listed Areas, war-risk insurance premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage might become more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including costs that may be incurred to the extent we employ on-board security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

In addition, petrochemical production and terminal facilities and vessels that transport petrochemical products could be targets of future terrorist attacks. Any such attacks could lead to, among other things, bodily injury or loss of life, vessel or other property damage, increased vessel operational costs, including insurance costs, and the inability to transport gases to or from certain locations. Terrorist attacks, piracy, war or other events beyond

19

our control that adversely affect the distribution, production or transportation of gases to be shipped by us could entitle customers to terminate our charters, which would harm our cash flow and business. In addition, the loss of a vessel as a result of terrorism or piracy would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations results in fluctuations in cash flows and operating results.

Substantially all of our cash receipts are in U.S. Dollars. Our disbursements, however, are in the currency invoiced by the supplier. We remit funds in the various currencies invoiced. We convert the non-U.S. Dollar invoices received and their subsequent payments into U.S. Dollars when the transactions occur. Fluctuating exchange rates may result in increased payments by us if the strength of the U.S. Dollar declines relative to such other currencies.

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

The operation of liquefied gas carriers is inherently risky. We may not be able to adequately insure against all risks, and any particular claim may not be paid by insurance. None of our vessels are insured against loss of revenues resulting from vessel off-hire time. Certain insurance coverage is maintained through mutual protection and indemnity associations, and as a member of such associations we may be required to make additional payments over and above budgeted premiums if members claims exceed association reserves.

We may be unable to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led in the past to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. The costs arising from a catastrophic spill or marine disaster could exceed the insurance coverage. Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks or piracy may also make certain types of insurance more expensive or more difficult to obtain. In addition, the insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain actions, such as vessels failing to maintain certification with applicable maritime self-regulatory organizations. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Restrictive covenants in our secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility impose, and any future debt facilities will impose, financial and other restrictions on us.

The secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility impose, and any future debt facility will impose, operating and financial restrictions on us. The restrictions in the existing secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility may limit our ability to, among other things:

20

The secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility require us to maintain various financial ratios. These include requirements that we maintain specified maximum ratios of net debt to total capitalization, that we maintain specified minimum levels of cash and cash equivalents (including undrawn lines of credit with maturities greater than 12 months), that we maintain specified minimum ratios of consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (consolidated EBITDA), to consolidated interest expense and that we maintain specified minimum levels of collateral coverage. Under our secured term loan facilities, if at any time the aggregate fair market value of (i) the vessels subject to a mortgage in favor of our lenders and (ii) the value of any additional collateral we grant to the lenders is less than 125% to 135%, as applicable, of the outstanding principal amount under the secured term loan facilities and any commitments to borrow additional funds, our lenders may require us to provide additional collateral. Upon notice from our lenders that additional collateral is required, we will have 30 days to either provide collateral that is acceptable to the lenders, cancel remaining commitments to lend and/or prepay outstanding debt in an amount to maintain the minimum collateral coverage ratio. See “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Secured Term Loan Facilities and Revolving Credit Facility—Financial Covenants.” The failure to comply with such covenants would cause an event of default that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Because of these covenants, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders’ interests may be different from ours, and we may not be able to obtain our lenders’ permission when needed. This may limit our ability to finance our future operations and make acquisitions or pursue business opportunities. See “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Secured Term Loan Facilities and Revolving Credit Facility.”

The secured term loan facilities are reducing facilities. The required repayments under the secured term loan facilities may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Loans under the secured term loan facilities are subject to quarterly repayments. If at such time we have not made alternative financing arrangements or generate substantial cash flows, any such repayments and our declining borrowing availability could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

If interest rates increase, it will affect the interest rates under our credit facilities, which could affect our results of operations.

Amounts borrowed under our existing credit facilities bear interest at an annual rate ranging from 2.10% to 2.70% above LIBOR. Interest rates have recently been at historic lows and any normalization in interest rates would lead to an increase in LIBOR, which would affect the amount of interest payable on amounts that we borrow under our credit facilities, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

The derivative contracts we may enter into to hedge our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates could result in higher than market interest rates and reductions in our shareholders’ equity, as well as charges against our income.

We may enter into interest rate swaps for purposes of managing our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates applicable to indebtedness under our secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility which were advanced at floating rates based on LIBOR. Our hedging strategies, however, may not be effective and we may incur substantial losses if interest rates move materially differently from our expectations.

To the extent our future derivative contracts may not qualify for treatment as hedges for accounting purposes, we will recognize fluctuations in the fair value of such contracts in our statement of income. In addition, changes in the fair value of future derivative contracts, even those that qualify for treatment as hedges, will be recognized in “Other Comprehensive Income” on our balance sheet, and can affect compliance with the net worth covenant

21

requirements in our secured term loan facilities. Our financial condition could also be materially adversely affected to the extent we do not hedge our exposure to interest rate fluctuations under our financing arrangements under which loans have been advanced at a floating rate based on LIBOR.

Any hedging activities we engage in may not effectively manage our interest rate exposure or have the desired impact on our financial conditions or results of operations.

Our business depends upon certain key employees.

Our future success depends to a significant extent upon our senior management, including our chairman, president and chief executive officer. Our senior management have substantial experience in the shipping industry and our chairman, president and chief executive officer and other members of the management team and others are crucial to the development of our business strategy and to the growth and development of our business. The loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our major shareholder may exert considerable influence on the outcome of matters on which our shareholders will be entitled to vote, and its interests may be different from yours.

The WLR Group, our principal shareholder, owned approximately 39.4% of our common stock, as of December 31, 2017. The WLR Group may exert considerable influence on the outcome of matters on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, including the election of our directors to our board of directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of the WLR Group may be different from your interests.

We are a holding company, and we depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations.

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to satisfy our financial obligations depends on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of a subsidiary to make these distributions could be affected by a claim or other action by a third party, including a creditor, or by the Republic of the Marshall Islands law, which regulates the payment of dividends by companies. In addition, under the secured term loan facilities, Navigator Gas L.L.C., our wholly-owned subsidiary, and our vessel-owning subsidiaries that are parties to the secured term loan facilities and revolving credit facility may not make distributions to us out of operating revenues from vessels securing indebtedness thereunder, redeem any shares or make any other payment to our shareholders if an event of default has occurred and is continuing. Please read “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Secured Term Loan Facilities and Revolving Credit Facility.” The inability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

The vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU could adversely affect us.

The 2016 United Kingdom referendum on its membership in the European Union (the “EU”) resulted in a majority of U.K. voters voting to exit the EU (“Brexit”). As a result, we face risks associated with the potential uncertainty and consequences that may follow Brexit, including with respect to volatility in exchange rates and interest rates as well as our ability to employ or retain employees in our UK Representative Office. Brexit could adversely affect European or worldwide political, regulatory, economic or market conditions and could contribute to instability in global political institutions, regulatory agencies and financial markets. Any of these effects of Brexit, and others we cannot anticipate, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

22

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

We may issue additional equity securities without your approval, which would dilute your ownership interests.

We may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or equity-linked securities without the approval of our shareholders, subject to certain limited approval requirements of the NYSE. In particular, we may finance all or a portion of the acquisition price of future vessels, including newbuildings, that we agree to purchase through the issuance of additional shares of common stock. Our amended and restated articles of incorporation, which became effective on November 5, 2013, authorize us to issue up to 400,000,000 shares of common stock, of which 55,531,831 shares were outstanding as of December 31, 2017. The issuance by us of additional shares of common stock or other equity or equity-linked securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

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

Sales of a substantial number of our shares of common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, may depress the market price for our common stock. These sales could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity securities in the future. The WLR Group, our principal shareholder, owned approximately 39.4% of our common stock, as of December 31, 2017. In the future, the WLR Group may elect to sell large numbers of shares from time to time.

We have no current plans to pay dividends on our common stock. Consequently, your only opportunity to achieve a return on your investment is if the price of our common stock appreciates.

We have no current plans to declare dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Consequently, your only opportunity to achieve a return on your investment in us will be if you sell your shares of common stock at a price greater than you paid for it. There is no guarantee that the market price of our common stock will ever exceed the price that you pay.

The obligations associated with being a public company requires significant resources and management attention.

As a public company in the United States, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the “Exchange Act,” and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” the listing requirements of the NYSE and other applicable securities rules and regulations. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual and current reports with respect to our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations as a public company. However, the measures we continue to take may not be sufficient to satisfy our obligations as a public company.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance

23

practices. We intend to continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative costs and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could be adversely affected.

Our independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Even if our management concludes that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue an adverse report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Failure to comply with Section 404 could subject us to regulatory scrutiny and sanctions, impair our ability to raise capital, cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and negatively affect our share price.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional costs and expenses.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as such term is defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and therefore, we are not required to comply with all the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations. Under Rule 405, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to us on June 30, 2018.

In the future, we would lose our foreign private issuer status if a majority of our shareholders, directors or management are U.S. citizens or residents and we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to avoid loss of foreign private issuer status. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the “SEC,” which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. For example, the annual report on Form 10-K requires domestic issuers to disclose executive compensation information on an individual basis with specific disclosure regarding the domestic compensation philosophy, objectives, annual total compensation (base salary, bonus, equity compensation) and potential payments in connection with change in control, retirement, death or disability, while the annual report on Form 20-F, including this annual report, permits foreign private issuers to disclose compensation information on an aggregate basis. We would also have to mandatorily comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders would become subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with good governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications would involve additional costs. In addition, we may lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers.

We are incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate law.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, or the “BCA.” The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Republic of the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the Republic of the Marshall Islands law are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain U.S. jurisdictions. Shareholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the

24

State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction.

Because we are a Marshall Islands corporation, it may be difficult to serve us with legal process or enforce judgments against us, our directors or our management.

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

There is substantial doubt that the courts of the Republic of the Marshall Islands would (1) enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws; or (2) recognize or enforce against us or any of our officers, directors or experts, judgments of courts of the United States predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws. We are a Marshall Islands corporation, have limited operations in the United States and maintain limited assets in the United States. Consequently, in the event of any bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or similar proceeding involving us, bankruptcy laws other than those of the United States could apply. The Republic of the Marshall Islands does not have a bankruptcy statute or general statutory mechanism for insolvency proceedings. If we become a debtor under U.S. bankruptcy law, bankruptcy courts in the United States may seek to assert jurisdiction over all of our assets, wherever located, including property situated in other countries. There can be no assurance, however, that we would become a debtor in the United States, or that a U.S. bankruptcy court would be entitled to, or accept, jurisdiction over such a bankruptcy case, or that courts in other countries that have jurisdiction over us and our operations would recognize a U.S. bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction if any other bankruptcy court would determine it had jurisdiction. These factors may delay or prevent us from entering bankruptcy in the United States and may affect the ability of our shareholders to receive any recovery following our bankruptcy.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws may have anti-takeover effects.

Several provisions of our articles of incorporation, which are summarized below, may have anti-takeover effects. These provisions are intended to avoid costly takeover battles, lessen our vulnerability to a hostile change of control and enhance the ability of our board of directors to maximize shareholder value in connection with any unsolicited offer to acquire our company. However, these anti-takeover provisions could also discourage, delay or prevent the merger or acquisition of our company by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise that a shareholder may consider in its best interest and the removal of incumbent officers and directors.

Blank Check Preferred Stock . Under the terms of our articles of incorporation our board of directors has the authority, without any further vote or action by our shareholders, to issue up to 40,000,000 shares of “blank check” preferred stock. Our board could authorize the issuance of preferred stock with voting or conversion rights that could dilute the voting power or rights of the holders of our common stock. The issuance of preferred stock, while providing flexibility in connection with possible acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could, among other things, have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us or the removal of our management and may harm the market price of our common stock.

Election of Directors . Our articles of incorporation provide that directors will be elected at each annual meeting of shareholders to serve until the next annual meeting of shareholders and until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified, except in the event of his or her death, resignation, removal or the earlier termination of his or her term of office. Our articles of incorporation do not provide for cumulative voting in the

25

election of directors. Our bylaws require shareholders to provide advance written notice of nominations for the election of directors. These provisions may discourage, delay or prevent the removal of incumbent officers and directors.

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations . Our bylaws provide that, with a few exceptions, shareholders seeking to nominate candidates for election as directors or to bring business before an annual meeting of shareholders must provide timely notice of their proposal in writing to the corporate secretary. Generally, to be timely, a shareholder’s notice must be received at our principal executive office not less than 90 days or more than 120 days prior to the first anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting of shareholders. Our bylaws also specify requirements as to the form and content of a shareholder’s notice. These provisions may impede a shareholder’s ability to bring matters before an annual meeting of shareholders or make nominations for directors at an annual meeting of shareholders.

Limited Actions by Shareholders. Our bylaws provide that only the board of directors may call special meetings of our shareholders and the business transacted at the special meeting is limited to the purposes stated in the notice.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, please read “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Taxation of the Company” and “Item 10—Additional Information—Taxation” for a more complete discussion of the expected material U.S. federal and non-U.S. income tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of our common stock.

We will be subject to taxes.

We and our subsidiaries will be subject to tax in the jurisdictions in which we are organized or operate. In computing our tax obligations in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. Upon review of these positions the applicable authorities may disagree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries. In addition, changes in our operations or ownership could result in additional tax being imposed on us or our subsidiaries in jurisdictions in which operations are conducted.

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

A non-U.S. entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company,” or “PFIC,” for U.S. federal income tax purposes if at least 75.0% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of “passive income” or at least 50.0% of the average value of its assets produce, or are held for the production of, “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property, and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.” U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their interests in the PFIC.

Based on our current and projected method of operation we believe that we were not a PFIC for any prior taxable year, and we expect that we will not be treated as a PFIC for the current or any future taxable year. We believe that more than 25.0% of our gross income for each taxable year was or will be non-passive income, and more than 50.0% of the average value of our assets for each such year was or will be held for the production of such

26

non-passive income. This belief is based on certain valuations and projections regarding our assets, income and charters, and its validity is conditioned on the accuracy of such valuations and projections. While we believe such valuations and projections to be accurate, the shipping market is volatile and no assurance can be given that our assumptions and conclusions will continue to be accurate at any time in the future.

Moreover, there are legal uncertainties involved in determining whether the income derived from our time-chartering activities constitutes rental income or income derived from the performance of services. In Tidewater Inc. v. United States , 565 F.3d 299 (5 ^th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the “Fifth Circuit,” held that income derived from certain time-chartering activities should be treated as rental income rather than services income for purposes of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the “Code,” relating to foreign sales corporations. In that case, the Fifth Circuit did not address the definition of passive income or the PFIC rules; however, the reasoning of the case could have implications as to how the income from a time charter would be classified under such rules. If the reasoning of the case were extended to the PFIC context, the gross income we derive from our time-chartering activities may be treated as rental income, and we would likely be treated as a PFIC. In published guidance, the Internal Revenue Service, or “IRS,” stated that it disagreed with the holding in Tidewater , and specified that time charters similar to those at issue in that case should be treated as service contracts. We have not sought, and we do not expect to seek, an IRS ruling on the treatment of income generated from our time-chartering activities. As a result, the IRS or a court could disagree with our position. No assurance can be given that this result will not occur. In addition, although we intend to conduct our affairs in a manner to avoid being classified as a PFIC with respect to each taxable year, we cannot assure shareholders that the nature of our operations will not change in the future and that we will not become a PFIC in the future. If the IRS were to determine that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year (and regardless of whether we remain a PFIC for subsequent taxable years), our U.S. shareholders would face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. Please read “Item 10—Additional Information—Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders—PFIC Status and Significant Tax Consequences” for a more detailed discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

We may have to pay tax on U.S. source income with respect to the operation of our vessels, which would reduce our cash flow.

Under the Code, “U.S. source gross transportation income” (as defined below) generally is subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deductions, unless an exemption from tax applies under a tax treaty or Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. U.S. source gross transportation income consists of 50.0% of the gross transportation income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves that is attributable to transportation that either begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States.

If a non-U.S. corporation satisfies the requirements of Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder, it will not be subject to the 4.0% U.S. federal income tax referenced above on its U.S. source gross transportation income. The Section 883 exemption does not apply to income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States.

We believe that with respect to the operation of our vessels, we satisfied the requirements to qualify for an exemption from U.S. tax on our U.S. source gross transportation income imposed by Section 883 of the Code for 2016 and 2017, and that we will be able to satisfy those requirements for 2018 and future taxable years provided that our common stock satisfies certain listing and trading requirements and not more than 50.0% of our common stock is owned, or is deemed to be owned by operation of certain attribution rules, for more than half of the days of such year, by 5.0% shareholders. The composition of owners of our common stock, including the quantity a shareholder may purchase in a given year, and the trading volumes of our common stock, are beyond our control. As a result, there can be no assurance that we can satisfy this stock ownership requirement for the current or any future year. If we did not satisfy the stock ownership requirement, we would likely not qualify for an exemption

27

under Section 883 for such year. If we fail to qualify for this exemption in any taxable year, U.S. source gross transportation income earned by us and our subsidiaries will generally be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax. For a more detailed discussion of Section 883 of the Code, the rules relating to exemptions under Section 883 and our ability to qualify for an exemption, please read Item 4B “Business—Taxation of the Company—U.S. Taxation.”

The vessels in our fleet do not currently engage in transportation that begins and ends in the United States, and we do not expect that we or our subsidiaries will in the future earn income from such transportation. If, notwithstanding this expectation, our subsidiaries earn income in the future from transportation that begins and ends in the United States, that income would be subject to a net income tax in the United States (currently at a 21% rate).

with capabilities between 15,000 and 24,999 cbm. Our handysize liquefied gas carriers can accommodate medium- and long-haul routes that may be uneconomical for smaller vessels and can call at ports that are unable to support larger vessels due to limited onshore capacity, absence of fully-refrigerated loading infrastructure and/or vessel size restrictions.

In addition, we have four midsize 37,300 cbm ethylene/ethane-capable semi-refrigerated liquefied gas carriers. Our midsize ethylene/ethane-capable semi-refrigerated gas carriers enable long-haul transportation of ethylene/ethane that may be uneconomical for smaller vessels.

We have one 38,000 cbm fully-refrigerated gas carrier which trades predominately from North West Europe and the Mediterranean to Morocco, carrying Ammonia.

We play a vital role in the liquefied gas supply chain for energy companies, industrial consumers and commodity traders, with our sophisticated vessels providing an efficient and reliable ‘floating pipeline’ between the parties. We continue to build strong, long-term partnerships based on mutual trust, our deep technical expertise and a modern versatile fleet

We also carry LPG for major international energy companies, state-owned utilities and reputable commodities traders. LPG, which consists of propane and butane, is a relatively clean alternative energy source with more than 1,000 applications, including as a heating, cooking and transportation fuel and as a petrochemical and refinery feedstock. LPG is a by-product of oil refining and LNG extraction, and shale gas, principally from the U.S.

We also carry petrochemical gases for numerous industrial users. Petrochemical gases, including ethylene, propylene, butadiene and vinyl chloride monomer, are derived from the cracking of petroleum feedstocks such as ethane, LPG and naphtha and are primarily used as raw materials in various industrial processes, like the manufacture of plastics, vinyl and rubber, with a wide application of end uses.

Our vessels also carry ammonia for the producers of fertilizers, a main use of ammonia for the agricultural industry, and for ammonia traders.

We and Enterprise Partners L.P. announced on January 31, 2018 the execution of definitive agreements creating a 50/50 joint venture to build a new ethylene export terminal in the U.S. Gulf that will have the capacity to export approximately one million tons of ethylene per year. Refrigerated storage for 30,000 tons of ethylene will be constructed on-site and will provide the capability to load ethylene at rates of 1,000 tons per hour. The project is supported by long-term contracts with customers that include ethylene producer Flint Hills Resources and a major polymer trading company. Construction remains conditioned on receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals. The target for the completion of the facility is the first quarter of 2020. The Company is contemplating a financing of up to $200 million to cover, in large part, its investment in the joint venture, although this may be altered as additional cost information is obtained.

Our Business Strategies

Our objective is to enhance shareholder value by executing the following business strategies:

29

30

31

Navigator Pluto, Navigator Aries and Navigator Global , which are chartered to Pertamina, the Indonesian state-owned producer of hydrocarbons, are owned by PT Navigator Khatulistiwa, an Indonesian limited liability company, or “PTNK.” Operations in Indonesia are subject, among other things, to the Indonesian Shipping Act. That law generally provides that in order for certain vessels involved in Indonesian cabotage to obtain the requested licenses, the owners must either be wholly Indonesian owned or have a majority Indonesian shareholding. PTNK is a joint venture of which 49% of the voting and dividend rights are owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of Navigator Holdings, and 51% of such rights are owned by Indonesian limited liability companies. The joint venture agreement for PTNK provides that certain actions relating to the joint venture or the vessels require the prior written approval of Navigator Holdings’ subsidiary, which may be withheld only on reasonable grounds and in good faith. PTNK is accounted for as a fully consolidated VIE in our financial statements.

As of December 31, 2017, the average monthly time charter rate for our 21 vessels operating under time charters was approximately $658,430 ($21,647 per day) per calendar month. Our current monthly charter rates range from approximately $320,000 to approximately $1,095,000. These time charter rates are the gross monthly charter rates before payment of address and brokerage commissions to charterers and their shipbrokers. Address and brokerage commissions typically range between 1.0% and 5.0% of the gross monthly charter rate. On average, we pay a 2.3% address and brokerage commission with respect to our current time charters.

Our Customers

We provide seaborne transportation and distribution services for LPG, ethylene, petrochemical gases and ammonia to:

In 2017, an aggregate of 55.1% of our revenues were derived from a combination of a contract of affreightments and time charters with Braskem, Mitsubishi, Sibur and Pertamina. The following table sets forth the percentage of our total revenues derived from our customers for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017:

32

Vessel Employment

Our chartering strategy is to combine a base of time charters and COAs with voyage charters. We currently operate a total of 38 vessels, of which 23 are employed under time charters, 12 are employed in the spot market and three under contracts of affreightment. As of December 31, 2017, 21 were employed under time charters, 12 were employed in the spot market and five were employed under contracts of affreightment.

Our voyage charters during 2017 included significant seaborne transportation of petrochemicals. Our semi-refrigerated vessels are highly versatile in that they, unlike fully-refrigerated vessels, can accommodate petrochemicals, LPG and ammonia at ambient as well as fully-refrigerated temperatures.

Petrochemicals (such as ethylene, ethane, propylene and butadiene) transported on spot voyage contracts during the 12 months of 2017 continued to rise accounting for 84% of all voyage days, against 77% of voyage days in 2016 and 39% in 2015. Conversely LPG voyage days continued to fall, accounting for only 16% of total voyage days in 2017. A typical petrochemical voyage is categorized as long haul, or deep sea, and is typically much longer in duration compared to handy size LPG voyages, which tend to be regional based.

The underlying petrochemical voyages principally commence in the U.S., South America and the Middle East and sail to the Far East and Europe to discharge. However, these trade routes may change in the future, subject to fluctuating arbitrages between the various geographical regions.

Time Charter

A time charter is a contract under which a vessel is chartered for a defined period of time at a fixed daily or monthly rate. Under time charters, we are responsible for providing crewing and other vessel operating services, the cost of which is intended to be covered by the fixed rate, while the customer is responsible for substantially all of the voyage expenses, including any bunker fuel consumption, port expenses and canal tolls.

Initial Term. The initial term for a time charter commences upon the vessel’s delivery to the customer. Under the terms of our charters, the customer may redeliver the vessel to us up to 15 to 30 days earlier or up to 15 to 30 days later than the respective charter expiration dates, upon advance notice to us.

Hire Rate. The hire rate refers to the basic payment by the customer for the use of the vessel. Under our time charters, the hire rate is payable monthly in advance in U.S. Dollars, or in case of the three ships chartered to Pertamina, in Indonesian Rupiah, as specified in the charter.

Hire payments may be reduced if the vessel does not perform to certain of its specifications, such as if the average vessel speed falls below a guaranteed speed or the amount of fuel consumed to power the vessel under normal circumstances exceeds a guaranteed amount.

Off-hire. Under our time charters, when the vessel is “off-hire” (or not available for service), the customer generally is not required to pay the charter hire, and the shipowner is responsible for all costs. Prolonged off-hire may lead to vessel substitution or termination of the time charter. A vessel generally will be deemed off-hire if there is a loss of time due to, among other things:

Management and Maintenance. Under our time charters, we are responsible for providing for the technical management of the vessel and for maintaining the vessel, periodic drydocking, cleaning and painting and performing work required by regulations. Currently, we work together with two third party technical managers,

33

NMM and Thome as well as our own in-house technical management function, to arrange for these services to be provided for all of our vessels. Please read “—Technical Management of the Fleet” for a description of the material terms of the technical management agreements.

Termination. Each of our time charters terminates automatically in the event of loss of the applicable vessel. In addition, we are generally entitled to suspend performance (but with the continuing accrual to our benefit of hire payments and default interest) under most of the time charters if the customer defaults in its payment obligations. Under most of the time charters, either party may also terminate the charter in the event of war in specified countries or in locations that would significantly disrupt the free trade of the vessel.

Voyage Charter/ Contract of Affreightment (“COA”)

A voyage charter is a contract, typically for shorter intervals, for transportation of a specified cargo between two or more designated ports. A COA essentially constitutes a series of voyage charters to carry a specified quantity of cargo during a specified time period. A voyage charter is priced on a current or “spot” market rate, typically on a price per ton of product carried rather than a daily or monthly rate. Under voyage charters, we are responsible for all of the voyage expenses in addition to providing the crewing and other vessel operating services.

Term. Our voyage charters are typically for periods ranging from 10 days to three months.

Freight Rate. The freight rate refers to the basic payment by the customer for the use of the vessel or movement of cargo. Under our voyage charters, the freight rate is payable upon discharge, in U.S. Dollars, as specified in the charter.

Management, Maintenance and Voyage Expenses. Under our voyage charters, we are responsible for providing for the technical management of the vessel in the same manner as for time charters referred to above.

We are also responsible for all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel consumption, port expenses and canal tolls.

Termination. Each of our voyage charters terminates automatically upon the discharge of the cargo at the discharge port and a COA terminates when we have discharged the final cargo at its discharge port.

Classification and Inspections

Every seagoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in class,” signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and inspections that are required by the regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull and machinery, including the electrical plant, and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

Annual Surveys. For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and machinery, including the electrical plant, and where applicable, on special equipment classed at intervals of 12 months from the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.

34

Intermediate Surveys. Extended annual surveys are referred to as intermediate surveys and typically are conducted two and a half years after commissioning and each class renewal. Intermediate surveys may be carried out on the occasion of the second or third annual survey.

Class  Renewal Surveys. Class renewal surveys (also known as special surveys), which require the vessel to enter drydock, are carried out on the ship’s hull and machinery, including the electrical plant, and on any special equipment classed at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull. During the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to determine the thickness of the steel structures. Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals. On vessels which are over 15 years old, substantial amounts of funds may have to be spent for steel renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear. In lieu of the special survey, a shipowner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel’s hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle. At an owner’s application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.

Commercial Management of the Fleet

We perform commercial management of our vessels in-house through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Navigator Gas L.L.C., under the terms of individual management contracts between Navigator Gas L.L.C. and each of our vessel-owning subsidiaries. Commercial management includes all chartering services for our vessels. Navigator Gas L.L.C. in turn has appointed its wholly-owned subsidiary, NGT Services (UK) Limited, as its agent for commercial services for our vessels.

Technical Management of the Fleet

General

We outsource the technical management of a significant number of our vessels, to NMM and Thome, third-party technical management companies, under the terms of standard ship management agreements, or the “technical management agreements.” We refer to NMM and Thome herein as our “technical managers.” We currently provide in-house technical management to nine of our vessels.

NMM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Stena AB Gothenburg, formed in 1983 and located in Clydebank, Scotland. Thome Ship Management was formed in 1976, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Thome Group located in Singapore. Each of our technical managers involved in the management of a wide range of vessels, with NMM having over 100 vessels under management and Thome over 300 vessels under management. Our technical managers have fully-owned crew recruitment agencies in major crew recruitment countries, are active in all aspects of technical, marine and crewing activities, and are each accredited to International Standards Organization (“ISO”) 9001 and ISO 14001 standards. We believe our technical managers manage all of their vessels in a safe and proper manner in accordance with owners’ requirements, design parameters, flag state and class requirements, charter party requirements and the international safety management code.

During 2017, we continued to expand our in-house technical management, transferring a further four vessels in-house from our technical managers. As we grow, we intend to seek opportunities to gain greater control over the management of our vessels and enhance customer service, reliability and our relationship with our charterers. Prior to 2016, we had not provided in-house technical management for any vessel in our fleet. Providing in-house technical management for any vessel in our fleet may impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff. Please see “Item 3—Key Information—Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business”

We believe our vessels are operated in a manner intended to protect the safety and health of employees, the general public and the environment. We actively manage the risks inherent in our business and are committed to eliminating incidents that threaten safety and the integrity of the vessels, such as groundings, fires, collisions and petroleum spills. We are also committed to reducing emissions and waste generation.

35

Technical Management Services

Under the terms of our ship management agreements with our technical managers, and under our supervision, our technical managers are responsible for the day-to-day activities of our externally managed fleet and are required to, among other things:

In the event that our technical managers pay certain expenses attributable to us, we have agreed to indemnify our technical managers against such expenses. In the event that our technical managers (or any of their related companies) are sued as a result of a breach or alleged breach of an obligation of ours to a third party, we have agreed to defend our technical managers (or their related companies) and indemnify our technical managers (and their related companies) against certain expenses incurred in their defense.

Fees and Expenses

As consideration for providing us with both technical and crewing management for our fleet, our third party managers currently receive a management fee of approximately $0.2 million per vessel per year, payable in equal monthly instalments in advance. The crewing management fee for our in-house technically managed vessels is approx. $0.1 million per vessel per year. We pay for any expenses incurred in connection with operating expenses for our vessels.

We carry insurance coverage consistent with industry standards for certain matters, but we cannot assure you that our insurance will be adequate to cover all extraordinary costs and expenses. Please read “—Insurance and Risk Management.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any costs and expenses are caused solely by our technical managers’ negligence or willful default, our technical managers will be responsible for them subject to certain limitations. Our technical managers are insured against claims of errors and omissions by third parties.

Term and Termination Rights

The ship management agreements automatically renew on their termination dates unless terminated by either party with three months’ prior written notice. Our technical managers may also terminate any of the ship management agreements immediately upon written termination notice to us if:

36

If, for any reason under our technical managers’ control, our technical managers fail to provide the services agreed upon under the terms of the management agreements or they fail to provide for the satisfaction of all requirements of the law of the vessels’ flag state or the ISM Code, we may terminate the agreements immediately upon written notice of termination to our technical managers, as applicable, if, after notice to our technical managers of the default and a reasonable amount of time to remedy, they fail to remedy the default to our satisfaction.

The technical management agreements will automatically terminate (i) if the vessels are sold, are requisitioned, become a total loss or are declared as a constructive, compromised or arranged total loss, (ii) in the event of our winding up, dissolution, bankruptcy or the appointment of a receiver, or (iii) if we suspend payments, cease to carry on business or make any special arrangement with our creditors.

Under the terms of the NMM and Thome ship management agreements, in the event that the technical management agreement is terminated for any reason other than by reason of default by either technical manager or the loss, sale or other disposition of the vessels, we are obligated to continue to pay the management fee for three calendar months from the termination date.

Crewing

We have entered into crew management agreements with our technical managers for each of our vessels. Under the terms of the crew management agreements, our technical managers are responsible for arranging crews for our fleet and are required to, among other things:

Unless two months’ prior written notice of termination is given, the agreements are automatically extended. Crewing costs could be higher due to increased demand for qualified officers as the worldwide LNG and LPG carrier fleet continues to grow. Please read “Item 3—Key Information—Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—A shortage of qualified officers makes it more difficult to crew our vessels and increases our operating costs. If a shortage were to develop, it could impair our ability to operate and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.”

We believe that the crewing arrangements ensure that our vessels are crewed with qualified seafarers that have the licenses required by international regulations and conventions. As of December 31, 2017, there were approximately 1,600 seagoing staff.

37

Insurance and Risk Management

The operation of any ocean going vessel carries an inherent risk of catastrophic marine disasters, death or injury of persons and property losses caused by adverse weather conditions, mechanical failures, human error, war, terrorism, piracy and other circumstances or events. The occurrence of any of these events may result in loss of revenues or increased costs. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull and Machinery

We carry “hull and machinery” insurance for each of our vessels, which insures against the risk of actual or constructive total loss of our vessels. Hull and machinery insurance also covers damage to mechanical equipment on board and loss of, or damage to a vessel due to marine perils such as collisions, grounding and weather. Each vessel in our existing fleet is covered for up to $100.0 million, with deductibles of $0.1 million.

War Risks Insurance

We also carry insurance policies covering war risks (including piracy and terrorism). Each vessel in our existing fleet is covered for up to $100.0 million, with no deductible. When our vessels travel into certain hostile regions, we are required to notify our war risk insurance carrier, and may incur an additional premium of approximately $4,000 per breach, generally for up to seven days. These additional premiums are typically paid by the charterers pursuant to the terms of our time charter agreements and are paid by us under the terms of our voyage charter and COA agreements.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance Associations

We also carry “protection and indemnity” insurance for each of the vessels in our existing fleet to protect against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business. Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or “P&I Associations,” and covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss of or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances, and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Each of the vessels in our existing fleet is entered in the Standard Steamship Owners’ Protection & Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Limited, or “The Standard Club,” or the Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited, or “Britannia,” both P&I Associations which are members of The International Group of P&I Clubs, or “The International Group.”

The Standard Club and Britannia each insure in excess of 100 million gross tons of shipping from all parts of the world and from all sectors of the shipping industry. The Standard Club and Britannia each have entered into pooling agreements to reinsure the respective association’s liabilities. Each International Group P&I Association currently bears the first $10.0 million of each claim. The excess of each claim over $10.0 million up to $30.0 million is shared by the P&I Associations under the pooling agreement. The excess of each claim over $30.0 million is shared by the members of The International Group under a reinsurance contract, which provides coverage of up to $3.1 billion per claim. Claims which exceed $3.1 billion are pooled between The International Group by way of “overspill” up to approximately $5.5 billion, which represents the current coverage limit per vessel per incident. Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is limited to $1.0 billion per vessel per incident, with the following per vessel per incident deductibles: $22,000 to $24,200 for fixed and floating objects claims, $50,000 to $55,000 for collisions, $6,050 to $7,500 for crew claims, $8,500 to $12,500 for cargo damage and $5,500 to $7,000 for all other incidents. As a member of both The Standard Club and Britannia, each of which is a member of The International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on our claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations, and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising The International Group.

38

Risk Management

To assess and mitigate risk we use computer based risk assessment tools, root cause analysis programs, planned and condition based maintenance programs, seafarers competence training programs, computer based training modules, seafarers workshops and seminars, as well as membership in emergency response organizations.

Environmental and Other Regulation

General

Governmental and international agencies extensively regulate the ownership and operation of our vessels. These regulations include international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in the countries where our vessels now or, in the future, will operate or where our vessels are registered. We cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these regulations, or the impact that these regulations will have on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. Various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies require us to obtain permits, licenses and certificates for the operation of our vessels.

Although we believe that we are substantially in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and have all permits, licenses and certificates required for our vessels, future non-compliance or failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of our vessels. A variety of governmental and private entities inspect our vessels on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis. These entities, each of which may have unique requirements and each of which conducts frequent inspections, include local and port state authorities, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent, classification societies, flag state, or the administration of the country of registry and charterers. We expect that our vessels will also be subject to inspection by these governmental and private entities on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to the stricter environmental standards. We will be required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations. We intend to assure that the operation of our vessels will be in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels will have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations. However, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our results of operations or financial condition.

NMM holds the International Standards Organization, or “ISO,” Environmental Standard for the management of the significant environmental aspects associated with the ownership and operation of a fleet of drybulk carriers and vessels. NMM and Thome have received their ISO 9001 certification (quality management systems), the ISO 14001 Environmental Standard, and NMM the ISO 50001 (energy efficiency). In summary terms, the ISO 14001 certification requires that we commit managerial resources to act on our environmental policy through an effective management system.

International Maritime Regulations

The IMO is the United Nations’ agency that provides international regulations governing shipping and international maritime trade. The requirements contained in the ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO, govern our

39

operations. Among other requirements, the ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a policy for safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and also describing procedures for responding to emergencies. We and our ship managers each hold a Document of Compliance under the ISM Code for operation of Gas Carriers.

Vessels that transport gas, including our vessels, are also subject to regulation under the International Gas Carrier Code, or the “IGC Code,” published by the IMO. The IGC Code provides a standard for the safe carriage of liquid gases by prescribing the design and construction standards of vessels involved in such carriage. Compliance with the IGC Code must be evidenced by a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk. Each of our vessels is in compliance with the IGC Code. Non-compliance with the IGC Code or other applicable IMO regulations may subject a shipowner or a bareboat 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.

The IMO also promulgates ongoing amendments to the international convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 and its protocol of 1988, otherwise known as “SOLAS.” SOLAS provides rules for the construction of and equipment required for commercial vessels and includes regulations for safe operation. It requires the provision of lifeboats and other life-saving appliances, requires the use of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System which is an international radio equipment and watchkeeping standard, afloat and at shore stations, and relates to the Treaty on the Standards of Training and Certification of Watchkeeping Officers, or “STCW,” also promulgated by the IMO. Flag states that have ratified SOLAS and STCW generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS and STCW requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

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

In January 2016, additional amendments became effective to the International Code for the Construction of Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) that was adopted in May 2014. The provisions of the IBC Code are mandatory under MARPOL and SOLAS. These amendments, which entered into force in June 2014, pertain to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of dangerous chemicals in bulk and identifying new products that fall under the IBC Code.

In the wake of increased worldwide security concerns, the IMO amended SOLAS and added “The International Security Code for Ports and Ships,” or the “ISPS Code,” as a new chapter to that convention. The objective of the ISPS Code, which came into effect on July 1, 2004, is to detect security threats and take preventive measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities. NMM has developed Security Plans, appointed and trained Ship and Office Security Officers and all of our vessels have been certified to meet the ISPS Code. See “—Vessel Security Regulations” for a more detailed discussion about these requirements.

The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulation may have on our operations.

Air Emissions

The International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, or “MARPOL,” is the principal international convention negotiated by the IMO governing marine pollution prevention and response. MARPOL

40

imposes environmental standards on the shipping industry relating to oil spills, management of garbage, the handling and disposal of noxious liquids, sewage and air emissions. MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI “Regulations for the prevention of Air Pollution,” or “Annex VI,” entered into force on May 19, 2005, and applies to all ships, fixed and floating drilling rigs and other floating platforms. Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts, emissions of volatile compounds from cargo tanks, incineration of specific substances, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for emission control areas (“ECAs”) to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. The certification requirements for Annex VI depend on size of the vessel and time of periodical classification survey. Ships weighing more than 400 gross tons and engaged in international voyages involving countries that have ratified the conventions, or ships flying the flag of those countries, are required to have an International Air Pollution Certificate, or an “IAPP Certificate.” Annex VI came into force in the United States on January 8, 2009. As of December 31, 2017, all our ships delivered or drydocked since May 19, 2005, have all been issued with IAPP Certificates.

Annex I to MARPOL, which applies to various ships delivered on or after August 1, 2010, includes requirements for the protected location of the fuel tanks, performance standards for accidental oil fuel outflow, a tank capacity limit and certain other maintenance, inspection and engineering standards. IMO regulations also require owners and operators of vessels to adopt Ship Oil Pollution Emergency Plans. Periodic training and drills for response personnel and for vessels and their crews are required.

On July 1, 2010, amendments to Annex VI proposed by the United States, Norway and other IMO member states took effect that require progressively stricter reductions in sulfur emissions from ships. Beginning on January 1, 2012, fuel used to power ships in all seas may contain no more than 3.5% sulfur. This cap will decrease progressively. For fuels used in Emission Control Areas (ECA), the cap settled at .1% in January 2015. For fuels used in all seas, the cap will settle at 0.5% on January 1, 2020. The amendments also establish new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. The European directive 2005/33/EU, which is effective from January 1, 2010, bans the use of fuel oils containing more than 0.1% sulfur by mass by any merchant vessel while at berth in any EU country. In 2011, the European Commission adopted a proposal to amend directive 2005/33/EU to bring it into alignment with the latest IMO provisions on the sulfur content of marine fuels. Review of the directive under this amendment is ongoing. Our vessels have achieved compliance, where necessary, by purchasing and utilizing fuel that meets the low-sulfur requirements.

As of January 2015, the limitations on sulfur emissions from ships operating within all Emission Control Areas (ECA) require that fuels contain no more than 0.1% sulfur. Additionally, more stringent emission standards for sulfur and nitrogen oxide apply in United States and Canadian coastal areas designated by the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, as discussed in “—Clean Air Act” below. On March 26, 2010, the IMO designated waters off North American coasts as an ECA in which stringent emission standards would apply. The first-phase fuel standard for sulfur in the North American ECA went into effect in 2012, and the second phase began in 2015. Further, on July 15, 2011, the IMO designated waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as an ECA. The first-phase fuel standard for sulfur in the U.S. Caribbean ECA went into effect in 2014, and the second phase began in 2015. Beginning in 2016, stringent engine standards for nitrogen oxide became effective in both the North American ECA and the U.S. Caribbean ECA. U.S. air emissions standards have incorporated these amended Annex VI requirements, and once these amendments become fully effective, we may incur costs to comply with these revised standards. Finally, China has designated three ECAs at the Pearl River Delta, the Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Bay. Beginning January 1, 2019, vessels operating within these areas will be required to use fuels with no more than 0.5% sulfur. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems.

Ballast Water Management Convention

The IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, or the “BWM Convention,” in February 2004. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations

41

call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements (beginning in 2009), to be replaced in time with a requirement for mandatory ballast water treatment. The BWM Convention was ratified by the sufficient number of states on September 8, 2016 and entered into force on September 8, 2017. As referenced below, the U.S. Coast Guard issued new ballast water management rules on March 23, 2012, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or “EPA,” issued a new Vessel General Permit in March 2013 that contains numeric technology-based ballast water effluent limitations. From 2016 (or not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey after 2016), only ballast water treatment will be accepted by the BWM Convention. Installation of ballast water treatments systems will be needed on all our vessels to comply with the BWM Convention and U.S. regulations discussed below. We will begin implementing the ballast water treatment system on vessels at an additional cost of approximately $0.6 million per vessel commencing with planned drydocks scheduled after January 1, 2018.

Bunker Convention/CLC State Certificate

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution 2001, or the “Bunker Convention,” entered into force in State Parties to the Convention on November 21, 2008. The Bunker Convention provides a liability, compensation and compulsory insurance system for the victims of oil pollution damage caused by spills of bunker oil. The Bunker Convention requires the ship owner liable to pay compensation for pollution damage (including the cost of preventive measures) caused in the territory, including the territorial sea of a State Party, as well as its economic zone or equivalent area. Registered owners of any sea going vessel and seaborne craft over 1,000 gross tonnage, of any type whatsoever, and registered in a State Party, or entering or leaving a port in the territory of a State Party, will be required to maintain insurance which meets the requirements of the Bunker Convention and to obtain a certificate issued by a State Party attesting that such insurance is in force. The State issued certificate must be carried on-board at all times.

Although the United States is not a party to these conventions, many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended in 2000, or the “CLC.” Under this convention and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain complete defenses. The limited liability protections are forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the owner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to states that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or on a strict-liability basis.

P&I Clubs in the International Group issue the required Bunkers Convention “Blue Cards” to provide evidence that there is in place insurance meeting the liability requirements. All of our vessels have received “Blue Cards” from their P&I Club and are in possession of a CLC State-issued certificate attesting that the required insurance coverage is in force.

Anti-Fouling Requirements

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, or the “Anti-fouling Convention.” The Anti-fouling Convention, which entered into force on September 17, 2008, prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels after September 1, 2003. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages must obtain an International Anti-fouling System Certificate and undergo a survey before the vessel is put into service or when the anti-fouling systems are altered or replaced. Our managers have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels and we do not believe that maintaining such certificates will have an adverse financial impact on the operation of our vessels.

42

Compliance Enforcement

The flag state, as defined by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, has overall responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations for all ships granted the right to fly its flag. The “Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance” evaluates flag states based on factors such as sufficiency of infrastructure, ratification of international maritime treaties, implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations, supervision of surveys, casualty investigations, and participation at IMO meetings. As of January 2016, auditing of flag states that are parties to the SOLAS convention is mandatory and will be conducted under the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code), which provides guidance on implementation and enforcement of IMO policies by flag states. These audits may lead the various flag states to be more aggressive in their enforcement, which may in turn lead us to incur additional costs.

Non-compliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the vessel owner or bareboat 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. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively.

The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.

U.S. Environmental Regulation of Our Vessels

Our vessels operating in U.S. waters now or in the future will be subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. In some cases, these laws and regulations require us to obtain governmental permits and authorizations before we may conduct certain activities. These environmental laws and regulations may impose substantial penalties for noncompliance and substantial liabilities for pollution. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties. As with the industry generally, our operations will entail risks in these areas, and compliance with these laws and regulations, which may be subject to frequent revisions and reinterpretation, increases our overall cost of business.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or “OPA 90,” established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for environmental protection and cleanup of oil spills. OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade with the United States or its territories or possessions, or whose vessels operate in the waters of the United States, which include the U.S. territorial waters and the two hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone of the United States. OPA 90 may affect us because we carry oil as fuel and lubricants for our engines, and the discharge of these could cause an environmental hazard. Under OPA 90, vessel operators, including vessel owners, managers and bareboat or “demise” charterers, are “responsible parties” who are all liable regardless of fault, individually and as a group, for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from oil spills from their vessels. These “responsible parties” would not be liable if the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. The other damages aside from clean-up and containment costs are defined broadly to include:

43

Effective December 21, 2015, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,200 per gross ton or $18,796 million for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation) (relevant to the Alma Maritime carriers). These limits of liability do not apply, however, where the incident is caused by violation of applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations, or by the responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. These limits likewise do not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the substance removal activities. This limit is subject to possible adjustment for inflation. OPA 90 specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters. In some cases, states, which have enacted their own legislation, have not yet issued implementing regulations defining shipowners’ responsibilities under these laws. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with OPA 90 and all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call. OPA 90 requires owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential strict liability under OPA 90. Under the regulations, evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance or guaranty. Under OPA 90 regulations, an owner or operator of more than one vessel is required to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for the entire fleet in an amount equal only to the financial responsibility requirement of the vessel having the greatest maximum liability under OPA 90. Each of our ship-owning subsidiaries that has vessels trading in U.S. waters has applied for, and obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center, three-year certificates of financial responsibility, or “COFRs,” supported by guarantees which we purchased from an insurance based provider. We believe that we will be able to continue to obtain the requisite guarantees and that we will continue to be granted COFRs from the U.S. Coast Guard for each of our vessels that is required to have one.

Future spills could prompt the U.S. Congress to consider legislation to increase or even eliminate the limits of liability under OPA 90. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA 90 may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes. Any additional legislation or regulation applicable to the operation of our vessels that may be adopted in the future could adversely affect our business and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Clean Water Act

The United States Clean Water Act, or “CWA,” prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in United States navigable waters unless authorized by a permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The EPA has enacted rules governing the regulation of ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels within U.S. waters. The rules require commercial vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels), or “Regulated Vessels,” to obtain a CWA permit regulating and authorizing such normal discharges. This permit, which the EPA has designated as the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or “VGP,” incorporates the current U.S. Coast Guard requirements for ballast water management as well as supplemental ballast water requirements, and includes limits applicable to 26 specific discharge streams, such as deck runoff, bilge water and gray water.

The VGP was updated in 2013 to incorporate numeric effluent limits for ballast water expressed as the maximum concentration of living organisms in ballast water, as opposed to the prior non-numeric requirements. These requirements correspond with the IMO’s requirements under the BWM Convention, as discussed above. The permit also contains maximum discharge limitations for biocides and residuals. All vessels calling on U.S. ports are now subject to the requirements of the VGP.

The 2013 VGP includes a tiered requirement for obtaining coverage based on the size of the vessel and the amount of ballast water carried. Vessels that are 300 gross tons or larger and have the capacity to carry more than

44

eight cubic meters of ballast water must submit notices of intent (NOIs) to receive permit coverage between six and nine months after the permit’s issuance date. Vessels that do not need to submit NOIs are automatically authorized under the permit.

The VGP imposes additional requirements on certain Regulated Vessel types that emit discharges unique to those vessels. Administrative provisions, such as inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, are also included for all Regulated Vessels.

National Invasive Species Act

In March 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a final rule establishing standards for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged in U.S. waters and requiring the phase-in of Coast Guard approved BWM Systems. The rule went into effect in June 2012, and adopts ballast water discharge standards for vessels calling on U.S. ports and intending to discharge ballast water equivalent to those set in IMO’s BWM Convention. The final rule requires that ballast water discharge have fewer than 10 living organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 micrometers in size. For organisms larger than 50 micrometers, the discharge must have fewer than 10 living organisms per cubic meter of discharge. In May 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard published a review of the practicability of implementing a more stringent ballast water discharge standard. The results concluded that the technology to achieve a significant improvement in ballast water treatment efficacy cannot be practically implemented. If Coast Guard type approved technologies are not available by a vessel’s compliance date, the vessel may request an extension to the deadline from the U.S. Coast Guard. While the 2012 rule imposes consistent numeric effluent limits for living organisms in ballast water discharges, it does not provide for compliance date extensions if Coast Guard-approved treatment technologies are not available.

In February 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a new rule amending the Coast Guard’s ballast water management recordkeeping requirements. Effective February 22, 2016, vessels with ballast tanks operating exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single Captain of the Port zone must submit an annual report of their ballast water management practices. Further, under the amended requirements, vessels may submit their reports after arrival at the port of destination instead of prior to arrival.

Clean Air Act

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, or the “CAA,” requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas and emission standards for so-called “Category 3” marine diesel engines operating in U.S. waters. The marine diesel engine emission standards are currently limited to new engines beginning with the 2004 model year. On April 30, 2010, the EPA promulgated final emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to MARPOL. These emission standards require an 80% reduction in nitrogen dioxides for newly-built engines effective 2016. In February 2015, the EPA amended its marine diesel engine requirements to temporarily allow marine equipment manufacturers to use allowances if a compliant marine engine is not available. Compliance with these standards may cause us to incur costs to install control equipment on our vessels in the future.

European Union Regulations

The European Union has also adopted legislation that would: (1) ban manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as those over 15 years old that have been detained by port authorities at least twice in a six month period) from European waters and create an obligation of port states to inspect vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment; and (2) provide the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies.

45

The European Union has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/EC/33 (amending Directive 1999/32/EC) introduced parallel requirements in the European Union to those in MARPOL Annex VI in respect of the sulfur content of marine fuels. In addition, it has introduced a 0.1% maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in EU ports, effective January 1, 2010. In 2011, the European Commission adopted a proposal to amend directive 2005/33/EU to bring it into alignment with the latest IMO provisions on the sulfur content of marine fuels. Review of the directive under this amendment is ongoing.

In 2005, the European Union adopted a directive on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for intentional, reckless or negligent pollution discharges by ships. The directive could result in criminal liability for pollution from vessels in waters of European countries that adopt implementing legislation. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. We cannot predict what regulations, if any, may be adopted by the European Union or any other country or authority.

Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from ships involved in international transport are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in 2005 and which countries have relied on to produce national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement, which was announced by the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, similarly does not cover international shipping, however the IMO has subsequently reaffirmed its strong commitment to continue to work to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships engaged in international trade. The IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, which may include market-based instruments or a carbon tax. In June 2013, the European Commission developed a strategy to integrate maritime emissions into the overall European Union strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In accordance with this strategy, in April 2015 the European Parliament and Council adopted regulations requiring large vessels using European Union ports to monitor, report and verify their carbon dioxide emissions beginning in January 2018.

As of January 1, 2013 all new ships must comply with mandatory requirements adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO in July 2011 in part to address greenhouse gas emission. These requirements add energy efficiency standards through an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). IMO’s Greenhouse Gas Working Group agreed on these guidelines to require all ships to develop and implement a Ship Energy Efficiency Plan (SEEMP). The regulations apply to all ships of 400 tonnes gross tonnage and above. The IMO also adopted a mandatory requirement in October 2016 that ships of 5000 gross tonnage and above record and report their fuel oil consumption. The requirement is expected to enter into force in March 2018. These new rules will likely affect the operations of vessels that are registered in countries that are signatories to MARPOL Annex VI or vessels that call upon ports located within such countries. The IMO is also considering the development of a market-based mechanism for greenhouse gas emissions from ships. At the October 2016 Marine Environmental Protection Committee session, the IMO adopted a roadmap for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions. The IMO anticipates adopting initial GHG reduction strategy in 2018. The EU has indicated that it intends to implement regulation in an effort to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels if such emissions are not regulated through the IMO.

In the United States, the EPA issued a final finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety, and has promulgated regulations under the Clean Air Act that control the emission of greenhouse gases from mobile sources, but not from marine shipping vessels and their engines and fuels. The EPA may decide in the future to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from these sources. The Agency has already been petitioned by the California Attorney General to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from oceangoing vessels. Other federal and state regulations relating to the control of greenhouse gas emissions may follow, including climate change initiatives that have recently been considered by the U.S. Congress and by individual states.

Any passage of further climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the European Union, the United States, or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level, that

46

restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Safety Requirements

The IMO has adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or “SOLAS Convention,” and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, or “LL Convention,” which impose a variety of standards to regulate design and operational features of ships. SOLAS Convention and LL Convention standards are revised periodically. All of our vessels are in compliance with SOLAS Convention and LL Convention standards.

Chapter IX of SOLAS, the requirements contained in the ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO, also affects our operations. The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop and maintain an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies.

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

The International Labour Organization, or “ILO,” is a specialized agency of the United Nations with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006, or “MLC 2006,” to improve safety on-board merchant vessels. A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. On August 20, 2012, the required number of countries ratified the MCL 2006 and it came into force on August 20, 2013. MLC 2006 requires us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Act of 2002, or “MTSA,” came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard 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, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to protect ports and international shipping against terrorism. After July 1, 2004, to trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state.

Among the various requirements are:

47

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from obtaining U.S. Coast Guard-approved MTSA vessel security plans provided such vessels have on-board an International Ship Security Certificate, or “ISSC,” that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code.

Our vessel managers have developed Security Plans, appointed and trained Ship and Office Security Officers and each of our vessels in our fleet complies with the requirements of the ISPS Code, SOLAS and the MTSA.

Other Regulation

Our vessels may also become subject to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 as amended by the Protocol to the HNS Convention, adopted in April 2010, or the “2010 HNS Protocol,” and collectively, the “2010 HNS Convention,” if it is entered into force. The Convention creates a regime of liability and compensation for damage from hazardous and noxious substances, or “HNS.” The 2010 HNS Convention sets up a two-tier system of compensation composed of compulsory insurance taken out by shipowners and an HNS Fund which comes into play when the insurance is insufficient to satisfy a claim or does not cover the incident. Under the 2010 HNS Convention, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, claims for compensation will first be sought from the shipowner up to a maximum of 100 million Special Drawing Rights, or “SDR,” which was equivalent to $138 million U.S. dollars as of January 31, 2016. SDRs are supplementary, foreign exchange reserve assets created and maintained by the International Monetary Fund, or “IMF,” based upon a basket of currencies (consisting of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and U.S. dollar). SDRs are not a currency, but instead represent a claim to currency held by IMF member countries for which SDRs may be exchanged. Monetary values and limits in many international maritime treaties are expressed in terms of SDRs. As of January 31, 2016, the exchange rate was 1 SDR equal to 1.37618 U.S. dollars. If the damage is caused by packaged HNS or by both bulk and packaged HNS, the maximum liability is 115 million SDR (equivalent to $158 million U.S. dollars as of January 31, 2016). Once the limit is reached, compensation will be paid from the HNS Fund up to a maximum of 250 million SDR (equivalent to $344 million U.S. dollars as of January 31, 2016). The 2010 HNS Convention has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to enter into force, and we cannot estimate the costs that may be needed to comply with any such requirements that may be adopted with any certainty at this time.

In-House Inspections

We, NMM and Thome carry out inspections of the ships on a regular basis; both at sea and while the vessels are in port, while we carry out inspection and ship audits to verify conformity with managers’ reports. The results of these inspections, which are conducted both in port and underway, result in a report containing recommendations for improvements to the overall condition of the vessel, maintenance, safety and crew welfare. The vessels we manage in house are inspected on a regular basis to verify their condition and that upkeep, maintenance, crewing standards and welfare are in compliance with the requirements of our Safety Management System.

Competition

The process of obtaining new charters is highly competitive, generally involves an intensive screening process and competitive bids, and often extends for several months.

A large proportion of our handysize liquefied gas carriers are contracted on 12 month or shorter time charters. There is competition for the employment of vessels when these charters expire and for the employment of those

48

vessels which trade on the spot market. Competition for mid- or longer-term charters is based primarily on industry relationships, experience and reputation for customer service, reliability, quality operations and safety, the experience and technical capability of the crews, the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life, and the competitiveness of the bid in terms of overall price.

Our existing fleet had an average age of 6.8 years as of December 31, 2017, which is significantly less than the average age of the world-wide fleet of handysize liquefied gas carriers. We believe that our relatively young fleet positions us well to compete in terms of our vessels meeting the strategic and operational needs of our charterers. We own and operate the largest fleet in our size segment, which, in our view, enhances our position relative to our competitors. While there are some barriers to entry, including the complexity of operating semi-refrigerated gas carriers that constantly require switching between a myriad of cargo types, crew expertise and the cost of, and availability of finance for, liquefied gas carriers, new entrants have entered the market over the last three years.

We believe that the market for obtaining new charters will continue to be highly competitive for the foreseeable future. However, we believe that our relationships, the reliability we strive to provide to our customers, the experience of the crews that service our vessels and the age and technical ability of our versatile fleet will provide us with a competitive advantage, both within the handysize segment and across the broader liquefied gas carrier industry.

Properties

Other than our vessels, we do not own any material property. We lease office space for our representative offices in New York, London and Gdynia.

The previous lease term for our representative office in London ended in March 2017. We entered into a new lease for an alternate office space for a period of 10 years with a mutual break option in February 2022, which is the fifth anniversary from the lease commencement date. The gross rent per year for our new office lease is approximately $1.1 million.

The lease term for our representative office in Gdynia, Poland is for a period of five years commencing from April 2017. The gross rent per year is approximately $60,000.

The previous lease term for our representative office in New York ended in June 2017. We have entered into a new lease for an alternate office space for a period of three years in June 2017. The total rent per year is approximately $365,000.

Employees

We had 60 employees as of December 31, 2017. We consider our employee relations to be good. Our crewing and technical managers provide crews for our vessels under separate crew management agreements.

Taxation of the Company

Certain of our subsidiaries are subject to taxation in the jurisdictions in which they are organized, conduct business or own assets. We intend that our business and the business of our subsidiaries will be conducted and operated in a manner designed to minimize the tax imposed on us and our subsidiaries. However, we cannot assure this result as tax laws in these or other jurisdictions may change or we may enter into new business transactions relating to such jurisdictions, which could affect our tax liability.

U.S. Taxation

The following is a discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax considerations applicable to us. This discussion is based upon provisions of the Code, final and temporary Treasury Regulations thereunder, and administrative rulings and court decisions, all as in effect as of the date hereof and all of which are subject to change or differing interpretation, possibly with retroactive effect. Changes in these authorities may cause the tax consequences to vary substantially from the consequences described below. The following discussion is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be a comprehensive description of all of the U.S. federal income tax considerations applicable to us.

Status as a Corporation . We are treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As such, we are subject to U.S. federal income tax on our income to the extent it is from U.S. sources or is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States as discussed below, unless such income is exempt from tax under Section 883 of the Code.

Taxation of Operating Income . Substantially all of our gross income is, and we expect that substantially all of our gross income will be, attributable to the transportation of LPGs and petrochemicals and related products until January 2020 when our proposed terminal on the U.S. Gulf Coast becomes operational. Gross income that is attributable to transportation that either begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States, or “U.S. Source International Transportation Income,” is considered to be 50.0% derived from sources within the United States and may be subject to U.S. federal income tax as described below. Gross income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States, or “U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income,” is considered to be 100.0% derived from sources within the United States and generally is subject to U.S. federal income tax. Gross income attributable to transportation exclusively between non-U.S. destinations is considered to be 100.0% derived from sources outside the United States and generally is not subject to U.S. federal income tax. We are not permitted by law to engage in transportation that gives rise to U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income. However, certain of our activities give rise to U.S. Source International Transportation Income, and we may in the future increase our operations in the United States, which would result in an increase in the amount of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income, all of which would be subject to U.S. federal income taxation unless the exemption from U.S. taxation under Section 883 of the Code, or the “Section 883 Exemption,” applies.

The Section  883 Exemption . In general, the Section 883 Exemption provides that if a non-U.S. corporation satisfies the requirements of Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder, or the “Section 883 Regulations,” it will not be subject to the net basis and branch profits taxes or the 4.0% gross basis tax described below on its U.S. Source International Transportation Income. The Section 883 Exemption applies only to U.S. Source International Transportation Income and does not apply to U.S. Source Domestic Transportation Income.

We will qualify for the Section 883 Exemption if, among other things, we meet the following three requirements:

50

In order for a non-U.S. corporation to meet the Publicly Traded Test, its equity interests must be “primarily traded” and “regularly traded” on an established securities market either in the United States or in a jurisdiction outside the United States that grants an Equivalent Exemption. The Section 883 Regulations provide, in pertinent part, that equity interests in a non-U.S. corporation will be considered to be “primarily traded” on an established securities market in a given country if, with respect to the class or classes of equity relied upon to meet the “regularly traded” requirement described below, the number of shares of each such class that are traded during any taxable year on all established securities markets in that country exceeds the number of shares in such class that are traded during that year on established securities markets in any other single country.

Equity interests in a non-U.S. corporation will be considered to be “regularly traded” on an established securities market under the Section 883 Regulations if one or more classes of such equity interests that, in the aggregate, represent more than 50.0% of the combined vote and value of all outstanding equity interests in the non-U.S. corporation satisfy certain listing and trading volume requirements. These listing and trading volume requirements will be satisfied with respect to a class of equity interests if trades in such class are effected, other than in de minimis quantities, on an established securities market on at least 60 days during the taxable year and the aggregate number of shares in such class that are traded on an established securities market during the taxable year is at least 10.0% of the average number of shares outstanding in that class during the taxable year (with special rules for short taxable years). In addition, a class of equity interests will be considered to satisfy these listing and trading volume requirements if the equity interests in such class are traded during the taxable year on an established securities market in the United States and are “regularly quoted by dealers making a market” in such class (within the meaning of the Section 883 Regulations).

Even if a class of equity satisfies the foregoing requirements, and thus generally would be treated as “regularly traded” on an established securities market, an exception may apply to cause the class to fail the regularly traded test if, for more than half of the number of days during the taxable year, one or more 5.0% shareholders (i.e., shareholders owning, actually or constructively, at least 5.0% of the vote and value of that class) own in the aggregate 50.0% or more of the vote and value of the class (which we refer to as the “Closely Held Block Exception”). For purposes of identifying its 5.0% shareholders, a corporation is entitled to rely on Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G filings made with the SEC. The Closely Held Block Exception does not apply, however, in the event the corporation can establish that a sufficient proportion of such 5.0% shareholders are Qualified Shareholders (as defined below) so as to preclude other persons who are 5.0% shareholders from owning 50.0% or more of the value of that class for more than half the days during the taxable year. Qualified Shareholders include:

We are organized under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which is a jurisdiction that the U.S. Treasury Department has recognized as granting an Equivalent Exemption with respect to the type of U.S. Source International Transportation Income we earn. Provided we satisfy the Substantiation Requirement, which we believe we will be able to satisfy, our U.S. Source International Transportation Income (including for this purpose, any such income earned by our subsidiaries) will be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation provided we meet the Publicly Traded Test.

We did not satisfy the requirements for the Section 883 exemption for our 2013 taxable year because our common stock was not traded on an established securities market for most of the year and therefore we did not

51

satisfy the “regularly traded” requirement of the Publicly Traded Test. However, for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 we believe that we satisfied the requirements of Section 883 exemption and therefore we were not subject to U.S. federal income taxation on our U.S. Source International Transportation Income. For the current and future taxable years, we believe we will be able to satisfy the Publicly Traded Test, provided we satisfy the listing and trading volume requirements described previously and the Closely Held Block Exception does not apply for such year. Our common stock, which is our only class of equity outstanding, represents more than 50.0% of the total combined voting power and value of all classes of our equity interests entitled to vote. In addition, because our common stock is traded only on the NYSE, which is considered to be an established securities market, our equity interests are “primarily traded” on an established securities market for purposes of the Publicly Traded Test. Further, we anticipate that our common stock will meet the “regularly traded” requirement of the Publicly Traded Test.

According to Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G filings with the SEC, 5.0% shareholders currently own, in the aggregate, less than 50.0% of the total vote and value of our common stock. Provided that in each of the current and future taxable years, 5.0% shareholders own, in the aggregate, less than 50.0% of the total vote and value of our common stock for more than half the days of such taxable year, and we continue to satisfy the listing and trading volume requirements described previously, we believe that we will satisfy the Publicly Traded Test for such year. However, additional persons that are not Qualified Shareholders may become 5.0% shareholders at any time. If more than 50.0% of our common stock were held by 5.0% shareholders (other than Qualified Shareholders) for more than half of the days of the current or any future year, we would likely not qualify for an exemption under Section 883 for such taxable year, due to the Closely Held Block Exception. Because qualification for the Section 883 Exception depends upon factual matters that are subject to change and are outside of our control, there can be no assurance that we will be able to satisfy the Publicly Traded Test for the current or any future taxable year. Please see “—The Net Basis Tax and Branch Profits Tax” and “—The 4.0% Gross Basis Tax” below for a discussion of the consequences in the event we do not satisfy the Publicly Traded Test or otherwise fail to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption.

The Net Basis Tax and Branch Profits Tax . If we earn U.S. Source International Transportation Income, and, the Section 883 Exemption does not apply, the U.S. source portion of such income may be treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, or “Effectively Connected Income,” if (1) we have a fixed place of business in the United States involved in the earning of U.S. Source International Transportation Income and (2) substantially all of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or, in the case of vessel leasing income, is attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States. In addition, if we earn other types of income within the territorial seas of the United States, such income may be treated as Effectively Connected Income.

Based on our current and projected methods of operation, we do not believe that any of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income will be treated as Effectively Connected Income for any taxable year. However, there is no assurance that we will not earn substantial amounts of income from regularly scheduled transportation or bareboat charters attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States (or earn income from other activities within the territorial seas of the United States) in the future, which would result in such income being treated as Effectively Connected Income.

Any income we earn that is treated as Effectively Connected Income, net of applicable deductions, would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (generally at a rate of 21.0%). In addition, a 30.0% branch profits tax could be imposed on any income we earn that is treated as Effectively Connected Income, as determined after allowance for certain adjustments, and on certain interest paid or deemed paid by us in connection with the conduct of our U.S. trade or business.

On the sale of a vessel that has produced Effectively Connected Income, we could be subject to the net basis U.S. federal corporate income tax as well as branch profits tax with respect to the gain recognized up to the amount of certain prior deductions for depreciation that reduced Effectively Connected Income. Otherwise, we would not be

52

subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to gain realized on the sale of a vessel, provided the sale is considered to occur outside of the United States under U.S. federal income tax principles. In general, the sale of a vessel will be considered to occur outside of the United States for this purpose if title to the vessel, and risk of loss with respect to the vessel, pass to the buyer outside the United States. It is expected that any sale of a vessel by us will be considered to occur outside the United States.

The 4.0% Gross Basis Tax . If the Section 883 Exemption does not apply and the net basis tax does not apply, we will be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax on the U.S. source portion of our gross U.S. Source International Transportation Income, without benefit of deductions. Under the sourcing rules described above under “—Taxation of Operating Income,” 50.0% of our U.S. Source International Transportation Income would be treated as being derived from U.S. sources.

Republic of the Marshall Islands Taxation

We believe that because we and our controlled affiliates do not, and do not expect to, conduct business or operations in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, neither we nor our controlled affiliates will be subject to income, capital gains, profits or other taxation under current Republic of the Marshall Islands law. As a result, distributions by our controlled affiliates to us will not be subject to Republic of the Marshall Islands taxation.

U.K. Taxation

NGT Services (UK) Limited, Navigator Gas Invest Limited, Navigator Gas Shipmanagement Ltd and Navigator Terminals Invest Ltd, as U.K. incorporated companies, are subject to U.K. corporation tax on all their profits wherever arising. If we and any of our controlled affiliates not incorporated in the United Kingdom ensure that our central management and control is exercised outside of the United Kingdom, and we do not otherwise create a U.K. permanent establishment by carrying on business in the United Kingdom, we should not become subject to U.K. corporation tax. Where a company’s central management and control is exercised is a question of fact to be decided in accordance with the particular circumstances of each company. Any distributions paid to us by NGT Services (UK) Limited will not be subject to U.K. taxation.

Singapore Taxation

Falcon Funding PTE Ltd is a Singaporean service company and is subject to Singaporean tax on all its profits wherever arising.

Indonesia Taxation

PT Navigator Khatulistiwa “PTNK” is a joint venture of which 49% of the voting and dividend rights are owned by a subsidiary though ultimately controlled at the shareholder level by a subsidiary of Navigator Holdings, and 51% of such rights are owned by Indonesian limited liability companies. PTNK is subject to Indonesian freight tax on all of its gross shipping transportation revenue at a rate of 1.2%.

Poland Taxation

NGT Services (Poland) Sp. Z O.O. is a Polish service company and is subject to Polish tax on all its profits wherever arising.

Not applicable.

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

53

Vessel Contracts

We generate revenue by providing seaborne transportation services to customers pursuant to the following three types of contractual relationships:

Time Charters . A time charter is a contract under which a vessel is chartered for a defined period of time at a fixed daily or monthly rate. Under time charters, we are responsible for providing crewing and other vessel operating services, the cost of which is intended to be covered by the fixed rate, while the customer is responsible for substantially all of the voyage expenses, including any bunker fuel consumption, port expenses and canal tolls. LPG is typically transported under a time charter arrangement, generally with a term of 12 months. However, nine of our current 22 time charters are for long term charters exceeding 12 months. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 48.2% of our revenue was generated pursuant to time charters, compared to the approximately 50.5% for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Voyage Charters . A voyage charter is a contract, typically for shorter intervals, for transportation of a specified cargo between two or more designated ports. This type of charter is priced on a current or “spot” market rate, typically on a price per ton of product carried rather than a daily or monthly rate. Under voyage charters, we are responsible for all of the voyage expenses in addition to providing the crewing and other vessel operating services. Petrochemical gases have typically been transported pursuant to voyage charters, as the seaborne transportation requirements of petrochemical product traders have historically resulted from a particular product arbitrage at a point in time. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 24.5% of our revenue was generated pursuant to voyage charters, compared to approximately 37.0% for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Contracts of Affreightment . A COA is a contract to carry specified quantities of cargo, usually over prescribed shipping routes, at a fixed price per ton basis (often subject to fuel price or other adjustments) over a defined period of time. As such, a COA essentially consists of a number of voyage charters to carry a specified amount of cargo over a specified time period (i.e., the term of the COA), which can span for months to potentially years. Similar to a voyage charter, we are typically responsible for all voyage expenses in addition to providing all crewing and other vessel operating services when trading under a COA. Three of our vessels are currently operating under contracts of affreightment. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 27.3% of our revenue was generated pursuant to COAs, compared to approximately 12.5% for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Vessels operating on time charters and longer-term COAs provide more predictable cash flows, but can potentially yield lower profit margins than vessels operating in the spot charter market during periods of favorable market conditions. Accordingly, as a result of a portion of our fleet being committed on time charters and COAs, we will be unable to take full advantage of improving charter rates to the same extent as we would if our liquefied gas carriers were employed only on spot charters. Conversely, vessels operating in the spot charter market generate revenue that is less predictable, but they may enable us to capture increased profit margins during periods of improving charter rates. However, operating in the spot charter market exposes us to the risks of declining liquefied gas carrier charter rates and relatively lower utilization rates as compared to time charters and certain COAs, which may have a materially adverse impact on our financial performance. Notwithstanding these risks, we believe that providing liquefied gas transportation services in the spot charter market is important to us, as it provides us with greater insight into market trends and opportunities.

We believe that the size and versatility of our fleet, which enables us to carry the broadest set of liquefied gases subject to seaborne transportation across a diverse range of conditions and geographies, together with our track record of operational excellence, positions us as the partner of choice for many companies requiring handysize liquefied gas transportation and distribution solutions. In addition, we believe that the versatility of our fleet affords us with backhaul and triangulation opportunities not available to many of our competitors, thereby providing us with opportunities to increase utilization and profitability. We seek to enhance our returns through a flexible, customer-driven chartering strategy that combines a base of time charters and COAs with more opportunistic, higher-rate voyage charters.

55

Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts

We use a variety of financial and operational terms and concepts in the evaluation of our business and operations. These include the following:

Operating Revenue . Our operating revenue includes revenue from time charters, voyage charters and COAs. Operating revenue is affected by charter rates and the number of days a vessel operates, as well as address commissions deducted by charterers. Rates for voyage charters are more volatile as they are typically tied to prevailing market rates at the time of the voyage. Historically, voyage charters have usually represented a minority of our annual operating revenue, which is consistent with our vessel employment strategy for the near future.

Brokerage Commissions . Brokerage commissions are costs remitted to shipping brokers for placing business with our vessels and are calculated as a percentage of chartering income.

Address Commissions . Address commissions are amounts deducted by charterers from revenue for placing business with our vessels and are calculated as a percentage of chartering income.

Voyage Expenses . Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel consumption, port expenses and canal tolls. Voyage expenses are typically paid by the shipowner under voyage charters and COAs and by the charterer under time charters. Accordingly, we generally only incur voyage expenses when performing voyage charters and COAs or during repositioning voyages between time charters for which no cargo is available. The gross revenue received by the shipowner under voyage charters and COAs are generally higher than those received under comparable time charters so as to compensate the shipowner for bearing all voyage expenses. As a result, our operating revenue and voyage expenses may vary significantly depending on our mix of time charters, voyage charters and COAs.

Charter-in Costs . Charter-in costs represent charter hire costs incurred by us for non-owned vessels that we charter into our fleet. While it is not a focus of our operational strategy, we may opportunistically charter-in vessels if we either have a need for a vessel to perform a specific undertaking or consider the charter rate requested by a vessel owner to be sufficiently attractive.

Vessel Operating Expenses . Vessel operating expenses are expenses that are not unique to a specific voyage. Vessel operating expenses include crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses relating to repairs and maintenance, the cost of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses. Our vessel operating expenses will increase with the expansion of our fleet. Other factors that are beyond our control may also cause these expenses to increase, including developments relating to market prices for insurance and crewing costs.

In connection with providing us with technical management for our fleet, NMM and Thome currently receive crewing and technical management fees of approximately $0.2 million per vessel per year in the aggregate, which fees are considered to be vessel operating expenses. The vessels which are under in-house technical management have the crewing function managed by one of our third party technical managers for a fee. Our technical and crew management agreements have terms through December 2017, and thereafter continue until terminated on at least three months’ notice by either party, subject to certain exceptions. During 2017 we continued to expand our in-house technical management scope, transferring a further four vessels to in-house technical management. As at December 31, 2017, we directly managed eight of the vessels in our fleet, compared to four as at December 31, 2016. We expect to continue into 2018 with additional vessels being integrated into our in-house technical management. See “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Technical Management of the Fleet.”

56

Depreciation and Amortization . Depreciation and amortization expense consists of:

General Administration Costs . General administration costs principally consist of the costs incurred in operating our London representative office, which manages our chartering, operations, accounting and administrative functions; our Gdynia representative office, which manages our in-house technical management and oversees the technical management of our other vessels; our New York representative office; and certain costs and expenses attributable to our board of directors. Please read “Item 4—Information on the Company—Business Overview—Commercial Management of the Fleet.” We incur additional expenses as a result of being a publicly-traded corporation, including costs associated with annual reports to shareholders and SEC filings, investor relations and NYSE annual listing fees. We may also grant equity compensation that would result in an expense to us, which may result in an increase in expenses. Please read “Item 6—Directors, Senior Management and Employees—Compensation—Equity Compensation Plans—2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan.”

Other Corporation Expenses . Other corporation expenses consist of our advisors’ services, including ongoing audit, taxation, legal and corporate services.

Drydocking . We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for any major repairs and maintenance, for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel, that cannot be performed while the vessels are operating and for any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements. We are required to drydock a vessel once every five years until it reaches 15 years of age, after which we are required to drydock the applicable vessel every two and a half to three years.

We capitalize costs associated with the drydockings as “built in overhauls” in accordance with U.S. GAAP and amortize these costs on a straight-line basis over the period between drydockings. Costs incurred during the drydocking period which relate to routine repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred. The number of drydockings undertaken in a given period and the nature of the work performed determine the level of drydocking expenditures.

Ownership Days . We define ownership days as the aggregate number of days in a period that each vessel in our fleet has been owned by us. Ownership days are an indicator of the size of our fleet over a period and the potential amount of revenue and expenses that we record during a period.

Available Days . We define available days as ownership days less aggregate off-hire days associated with major scheduled maintenance, which principally include drydockings, special or intermediate surveys, vessel upgrades or major repairs. We use available days to measure the number of days in a period that our operated vessels should be capable of generating revenues.

Operating Days . We define operating days as available days less the aggregate number of days that our operated vessels are not generating revenue, which includes idle days and off-hire days for any reason other than major scheduled maintenance. We use operating days to measure the aggregate number of days in a period that our operated vessels are servicing our customers.

Fleet Utilization . We define fleet utilization as the total number of operating days in a period divided by the total number of available days during that period.

Time Charter Equivalent Rate . TCE rate not is calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. TCE rate is a measure which converts voyage charter and COA revenues to a time charter comparable, by deducting voyage

57

expenses (which are incurred by the charterer in the case of time charters) from voyage revenue. TCE rate is a standard shipping industry performance measure used primarily to compare the performance of different charter types (i.e., time charters, voyage charters and COAs) and to enable a period-to-period comparison in performance despite changes in the mix of charter types under which the vessels may be employed between the periods. Our method of calculating TCE rate is to divide operating revenue for a voyage charter or COA (net of voyage expenses) by the relevant time period of that charter.

Daily Vessel Operating Expenses . Daily vessel operating expenses are calculated by dividing vessel operating expenses by ownership days (excluding ownership days attributable to chartered-in vessels) for the relevant time period.

Operating Revenue . Operating revenue net of address commission, increased by $4.5 million or 1.5 % to $298.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $294.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This increase was primarily due to:

59

The following table presents selected operating data for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, which we believe is useful in understanding our operating revenue:

The following table represents a reconciliation of operating revenue to TCE rate. Operating revenue is the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP for the periods presented.

Brokerage Commissions . Brokerage commissions, which typically vary between 1.25% and 5%, decreased by 7.6% to $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $5.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This was primarily due to a six voyage contract of affreightment undertaken during the year which had no broker commission due on the revenue generated.

Voyage Expenses . Voyage expenses increased by 31.6% to $55.5 million for year ended December 31, 2017, from $42.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This was primarily due to an increase in the number and duration of voyage charters undertaken during the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to the year ended December 31, 2016, with these increased voyage costs being pass through costs, compensated for by increased revenue of the same amount.

Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses increased by 11.1% to $101.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $90.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as the number of vessels in

60

our fleet increased. Average daily vessel operating expenses decreased by $290 per vessel per day, or 3.7%, to $7,635 per vessel per day for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to $7,925 per vessel per day for the year ended December 31, 2016, primarily due to operating costs being lower for the relatively newer vessels joining our fleet, active management of vessel operating costs and higher maintenance expenditure incurred as a result of a number of dry dockings undertaken during the year ended December 31, 2016.

Depreciation and Amortization . Depreciation and amortization expense increased by 18.2% to $73.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $62.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This increase was primarily due to an increase in our fleet size. Depreciation and amortization expense included amortization of capitalized drydocking costs of $9.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, and $8.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Other Operating Results

General Administration Costs . General administration costs increased by $1.3 million or 10.3% to $13.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $12.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in general administration costs was primarily due to increased office lease costs and an increase in the number of employees during the year ended December 31, 2017, to enable us to provide in-house technical management for an increasing number of our vessels.

Write off of insurance amount receivable . The write off of insurance amount receivable of $0.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 was due to an expected reduction in the total insurance proceeds receivable, as a result of lower than expected total costs incurred for repairing Navigator Aries , following the June 2015 collision.

Interest Expense . Interest expense increased by $5.4 million, or 16.5%, to $37.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, from $32.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. This was primarily due to interest on the additional $375.8 million borrowed under our loan facilities from the year ended December 31, 2016 until the year ended December 31, 2017 associated with the deliveries of nine newbuilding vessels partially offset by a $3.1 million saving as a result of refinancing our unsecured bond in February 2017. Interest capitalized on newbuilding instalment payments for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $1.7 million, a decrease of $3.4 million from the $5.1 million of interest capitalized from the year ended December 31, 2016 as the remaining vessels in the newbuild program were delivered.

Write off of Deferred Financing Costs . The write off of deferred financing costs of $0.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 related to the remaining unamortized deferred financing costs of the 2012 Bonds that we redeemed prior to their maturity date. The write off of deferred financing costs of $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 related to costs associated with the April 2011 and April 2012 secured term loan facilities that was refinanced in 2016.

Write off of Call Premium and Redemption Charges on 9.0% Senior Unsecured Bond . In connection with a call option under the terms of our then outstanding 2012 Bonds, pursuant to which we redeemed all of the outstanding principal amount thereof in February 2017, we incurred $3.5 million in charges for the year ended December 31, 2017 that were written off, consisting of a redemption premium of $2.5 million and $1.0 million in interest notice penalty on such bonds prior to maturity.

Income Taxes. Income tax relates to taxes on our subsidiaries incorporated in the United Kingdom, Poland and Singapore. Two of our United Kingdom subsidiaries earn management and other fees from affiliates, and our Singaporean subsidiary earns interest from loans to our variable interest entity in Indonesia, the main corporate tax rates are 19%, 19% and 17% in the United Kingdom, Poland and Singapore, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we incurred taxes of $397,381 as compared to taxes for the year ended December 31, 2016 of $1,177,525. This reduction is primarily due to a reduction in management fees charged from our UK

61

subsidiary as a result of a fall in revenue after voyage expenses; and a negative tax charge in Poland due to start up losses.

Operating Revenue . Operating revenue, net of address commission, decreased by 6.7% to $294.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, from $315.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. This decrease was primarily due to:

62

The following table presents selected operating data for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, which we believe are useful in understanding our operating revenue: