A. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY General Information Double Hull Tankers, Inc., or “Double Hull,” was incorporated in April 2005 under the laws of the Marshall Islands as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (“OSG”). In October 2005, DHT Maritime, Inc. completed its initial public offering. During the first half of 2007, OSG sold all of its common stock of DHT Maritime. In June 2008, Double Hull’s stockholders voted to approve an amendment to Double Hull’s articles of incorporation to change its name to DHT Maritime, Inc. On February 12, 2010, DHT Holdings, Inc. was incorporated under the laws of the Marshall Islands, and DHT Maritime became a wholly owned subsidiary of DHT Holdings, Inc. in March 2010 until it was dissolved in November 2018. Shares of DHT Holdings, Inc. common stock trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “DHT.” Our principal capital expenditures during the last three fiscal years and through the date of this report include $386 million in connection with the four newbuilding contracts discussed below, $201 million in connection with the acquisition of two secondhand VLCCs and $23 million related to eight exhaust gas cleaning systems. Our principal divestitures during the same period comprise the sale of four VLCCs for a total of $194 million. 25 Table of Contents Our principal executive offices are currently located at Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda and our telephone number at that address is +1 (441) 295-1422. We own each of the vessels in our fleet through wholly owned subsidiaries. During 2025, all of our subsidiaries that had been previously domiciled in the Cayman Islands were redomiciled to the Marshall Islands. As a result, all of our ship owning subsidiaries are now incorporated under the laws of the Marshall Islands. We operate our vessels through our subsidiary management companies in Monaco, Norway, Singapore and India. We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act. In accordance with these requirements, we file reports and other information as a foreign private issuer with the SEC. You may inspect reports and other information regarding registrants, such as us, that file electronically with the SEC without charge at a website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. These documents and other important information on our governance are posted on our website and may be viewed at www.dhtankers.com. The information contained on or connected to our website is not a part of this annual report. B. BUSINESS OVERVIEW We operate a fleet of crude oil tankers. As of March 13, 2026, our fleet consisted of 23 VLCC crude oil tankers (including two VLCCs that we have agreed to sell), all of which are wholly owned by DHT Holdings, Inc. In addition, the Company has contracted to build two new VLCCs at Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries in South Korea for delivery during the first half of 2026. VLCCs are tankers ranging in size from 270,000 to 320,000 dwt. As of the date of this report, 11 of our 23 vessels are on time charters and 12 vessels are operating in the spot market. The fleet operates globally on international routes. The 23 VLCCs currently in operation have a combined carrying capacity of 7,162,399 dwt and an average age of 10.1 years as of the date of this report. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Acquisition of VLCCs In November 2025, the Company took delivery of the DHT Nokota, a VLCC built in 2018, which was acquired for $107 million. The vessel was built to a high specification by its current owner and is fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system. The vessel was financed with available liquidity and proceeds of borrowings under a secured credit agreement with Nordea Bank Abp filial I Norge (“Nordea”). In January 2026, the Company took delivery of a VLCC newbuilding from Hanwha Ocean, the DHT Antelope. The vessel was built to a high specification and is fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system. The vessel was financed with available liquidity and proceeds of borrowings under a secured credit agreement with ING Bank N.V. (“ING”) and Nordea. In March 2026, the Company took delivery of a VLCC newbuilding from Hanwha Ocean, the DHT Addax. The vessel was built to a high specification and is fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system. The vessel was financed with available liquidity and proceeds of borrowings under a secured credit agreement with ING and Nordea. Sale of Vessels DHT Scandinavia was delivered to its new owner in January 2025. The vessel had no outstanding debt, and the Company booked a gain of $19.8 million in the first quarter of 2025 in connection with the sale. In April 2025, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the DHT Lotus and DHT Peony for a combined price of $103.0 million. Both vessels were built at Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Co, China, in 2011. The vessels were acquired in 2017 as part of the acquisition of BW Group’s VLCC fleet for an aggregate price of $115.8 million. DHT Lotus was delivered to its new owner on April 29, 2025, and DHT Peony was delivered on July 30, 2025. After repayment of existing debt on the vessels, amounting to $11.4 million in aggregate, the transaction generated net cash proceeds of approximately $89.5 million. The Company recorded a gain of $17.5 million in the second quarter of 2025 related to DHT Lotus and recorded a gain of $15.7 million in the third quarter of 2025 related to DHT Peony. 26 Table of Contents In December 2025, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the DHT China and DHT Europe for a combined price of $101.6 million. Both vessels were built at the South Korean yard Hyundai Samho in 2007. The DHT Europe was delivered to its new owner on January 30, 2026, and DHT China is expected to be delivered during the first quarter of 2026. After repayment of existing debt on the vessels, amounting to $5.6 million in aggregate, the transaction is expected to generate net cash proceeds of approximately $95.0 million. The Company expects to record gains of $30.4 million and $29.7 million, respectively, related to the sales. In January 2026, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the DHT Bauhinia, built in 2007, for a price of $51.5 million. The vessel is expected to be delivered to the new owner in June/July 2026. The vessel is debt free and the Company expects to record a gain of approximately $34.2 million related to the sale. Time Charter Contracts In January 2025, the Company entered into a one-year time charter contract for DHT China, built 2007. The time charter contract had a rate of $40,000 per day. The vessel was delivered into the time charter contract in January 2025. In March 2025, the Company entered into a one-year time charter contract for DHT Tiger, built 2017, with a global energy company. The time charter contract has a rate of $52,500 per day. DHT Tiger was delivered into the time charter contract at the end of March 2025. In April 2025, the Company entered into a seven-year time charter contract for DHT Appaloosa, built 2018, with a global energy company. The time charter contract has a fixed base rate of $41,000 per day plus an index-based profit-sharing structure calculated on the ship’s specifications. All index-based earnings in excess of $41,000 per day will be shared equally between the customer and DHT. The customer has the option to extend for two additional years. DHT Appaloosa was delivered into the time charter contract in May 2025. In May 2025, the Company entered into a one-year time charter contract for DHT Bauhinia, built 2007, with a global energy-based trading company. The time charter contract has a rate of $41,500 per day. DHT Bauhinia was delivered into the time charter contract at the end of May 2025. In January 2026, the Company extended its time charter agreement for DHT Harrier, built 2016, with a global energy company. The extended contract is for five years with two optional extension periods for one year each. The new time charter will commence immediately upon the expiration of the current time charter. The agreed daily rate is $47,500 for the fixed five-year term, $49,000 for the first optional year, and $50,000 for the second optional year. In February 2026, the Company entered into a one-year time charter agreement for DHT Opal, built 2012, with a global energy company. The contract commenced in February 2026 and has a daily rate of $90,000 per day. In February 2026, the Company entered into a one-year time charter agreement for DHT Taiga, built 2012, with a global energy company. The contract commenced in March 2026 and has a daily rate of $94,000 per day. In February 2026, the Company entered into a one-year time charter agreement for DHT Redwood, built 2011, with a global energy company. The contract is expected to commence in late March 2026 and has a daily rate of $105,000 per day. Interest rate swap agreements In the third quarter of 2025, the Company entered into eight amortizing interest rate swap agreements totaling $200.6 million. The average fixed interest rate is 3.32%, compared to three-month term SOFR as of December 31, 2025 of 3.65%, and maturity is in the fourth quarter of 2028. 27 Table of Contents CHARTER ARRANGEMENTS The following summary of the material terms of the employment of our vessels does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by reference to, all of the provisions of the charters. Because the following is only a summary, it does not contain all information that you may find useful. Vessel Employment The following table presents certain features of our vessel employment as of the date of this report: Vessel (VLCC) Type of Employment Expiry DHT Addax Spot DHT Antelope Spot DHT Appaloosa Time charter with profit sharing Q2 2032 DHT Mustang Spot DHT Nokota Spot DHT Bronco Spot DHT Colt Spot DHT Stallion Spot DHT Tiger Time charter Q2 2026 DHT Harrier Time charter Q4 2030 DHT Puma Time charter with profit sharing Q1 2027 DHT Panther Spot DHT Osprey Time charter Q2 2027 DHT Lion Time charter Q2 2026 DHT Leopard Time charter Q4 2027 DHT Jaguar Spot DHT Taiga Time charter Q1 2027 DHT Opal Time charter Q1 2027 DHT Sundarbans Spot DHT Redwood Spot DHT Amazon Spot DHT China1 Time charter Q1 2026 DHT Bauhinia1 Time charter Q2 2026 1 Vessel agreed to be sold. To be delivered upon completion of current charter. SHIP MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS The following summary of the material terms of our ship management agreements does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by reference to, all the provisions of the ship management agreements. Technical Management The technical management for all our vessels is carried out by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Goodwood (the “Technical Manager”). The Technical Manager is responsible for the technical operation and upkeep of the respective vessel, including crewing, maintenance, repairs and drydockings, maintaining required vetting approvals and relevant inspections, and for promoting vessel compliance with the requirements of classification societies as well as relevant governments, flag state, environmental and other regulations. The relevant vessel-owning subsidiary pays the actual cost associated with the technical management. We will be required to obtain the consent of any applicable charterer and our lenders before we appoint a new manager; however, such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 28 Table of Contents Loss of Hire Insurance We may obtain loss of hire insurance that will generally provide coverage against business interruption for periods of more than 60 days per incident (up to a maximum of 180 days per incident per year) following any loss under our hull and machinery policy (mechanical breakdown, grounding, collision or other incidence of damage that does not result in a total loss or constructive total loss of the vessel). We place the insurance requirements related to the fleet with mutual clubs and underwriters through insurance brokers. Such requirements are, but are not limited to, marine hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance (including pollution risks and crew insurance), war risk insurance, and when viewed as appropriate, loss of hire insurance. Each vessel subsidiary pays the actual cost associated with the insurance placed for the relevant vessel. OUR FLEET The following chart summarizes certain information about the vessels in our fleet (including the four newbuildings) as of December 31, 2025. Company Vessel (VLCC) Year Built Dwt Flag* Yard** Classification Society*** Percent of Ownership DHT Impala, Inc. DHT Impala 10 2026 319,000 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Gazelle, Inc. DHT Gazelle 10 2026 319,825 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Addax, Inc. DHT Addax 9 2026 319,999 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Antelope, Inc. DHT Antelope 9 2026 319,999 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Appaloosa, Inc. DHT Appaloosa 7 2018 318,918 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Mustang Inc DHT Mustang 5 2018 317,975 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Nokota Inc DHT Nokota 8 2018 318,918 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Bronco Inc DHT Bronco 5 2018 317,975 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Colt Inc DHT Colt 4 2018 319,713 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Stallion Inc DHT Stallion 4 2018 319,713 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Tiger Limited DHT Tiger 2 2017 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Harrier Inc DHT Harrier 6 2016 299,985 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Puma Limited DHT Puma 2 2016 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Panther Limited DHT Panther 2 2016 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Osprey Inc DHT Osprey 6 2016 299,999 MH Hanwha LR 100% DHT Lion Limited DHT Lion 2 2016 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Leopard Limited DHT Leopard 2 2016 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Jaguar Limited DHT Jaguar 2 2015 299,629 MH HHI ABS 100% Samco Iota Ltd DHT Taiga 1 2012 318,130 MH HHI ABS 100% DHT Opal Inc DHT Opal 3 2012 320,105 MH Hanwha LR 100% Samco Theta Ltd DHT Sundarbans 1 2012 318,123 MH HHI LR 100% Samco Kappa Ltd DHT Redwood 1 2011 318,130 MH HHI ABS 100% Samco Eta Ltd DHT Amazon 1 2011 318,130 MH HHI LR 100% Samco Epsilon Ltd DHT China 1 2007 317,794 MH HHI LR 100% Samco Delta Ltd DHT Europe 1 2007 317,713 MH HHI LR 100% DHT Bauhinia Inc DHT Bauhinia 3 2007 301,019 MH Hanwha LR 100% *MH: Marshall Island **HHI: Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.; Hanwha: Hanwha Ocean (formerly known as Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., Ltd.). 29 Table of Contents ***ABS: American Bureau of Shipping, an American classification society; LR: Lloyd’s Register, a United Kingdom classification society. 1 Fleet acquired on September 17, 2014. DHT China and DHT Europe are sold as of the date of this annual report. 2 Delivery dates from HHI for six newbuildings were as follows: DHT Jaguar on November 23, 2015, DHT Leopard on January 4, 2016, DHT Lion on March 15, 2016, DHT Panther on August 5, 2016, DHT Puma on August 31, 2016, and DHT Tiger on January 16, 2017. 3 Delivery dates for the vessels acquired from BW Group Limited (“BW Group”) were as follows: DHT Opal on April 24, 2017, and DHT Bauhinia on June 13, 2017. DHT Bauhinia was agreed to be sold as of the date of this report. 4 Delivery dates from Hanwha for the two vessels under newbuilding contracts acquired from BW Group were as follows: DHT Stallion on April 27, 2018, and DHT Colt on May 25, 2018. 5 Delivery dates from HHI for the two vessels under newbuilding contracts were as follows: DHT Bronco on July 27, 2018 and DHT Mustang on October 8, 2018. 6 Delivery dates were as follows: DHT Harrier on February 18, 2021, and DHT Osprey on April 12, 2021. 7 Delivery date for DHT Appaloosa was on July 31, 2023. 8 Delivery date for DHT Nokota was on November 14, 2025. 9 Delivery dates for the two vessels under the newbuilding contracts from Hanwha were as follows: DHT Antelope on January 2, 2026, and DHT Addax on March 6, 2026. 10 Delivery dates for the two vessels under the newbuilding contracts with HHI are expected as follows: DHT Gazelle on March 30, 2026, and DHT Impala on June 22, 2026. COMPETITION The operation of tanker vessels and transportation of crude and petroleum products is highly competitive. We compete not only with other tanker owners, but also with fleets controlled by our customers. We primarily compete for charters on the basis of price; however, vessel condition, location, size, and age, in addition to our reputation as an operator, may impact our competitive position. Our competitive position may also be affected by price dislocation between other sizes of vessels or vessels consuming alternative fuel types that could enter the trades in which we engage. SEASONALITY We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, charter rates. Peaks in tanker demand quite often precede seasonal oil consumption peaks, as refiners and suppliers anticipate consumer demand. Historically, seasonal peaks in oil demand can broadly be classified into two main categories: (1) increased demand prior to Northern Hemisphere winters as heating oil consumption increases and (2) increased demand for gasoline prior to the summer driving season in the United States. Asia has emerged as the most important region for demand of oil and oil transportation. Seasonality in Asia differs from that of the United States; hence the historical seasonality has become less pronounced and less predictable. Unpredictable weather patterns and variations in oil inventories could disrupt tanker scheduling. Variations in regional economic activity and seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results, as the majority of our vessels trade in the spot market. However, to the extent that our vessels are chartered at fixed rates on a long-term basis, seasonal factors will not have a significant direct effect on our business. 30 Table of Contents RISK OF LOSS AND INSURANCE Our operations may be affected by a number of risks, including mechanical failure of the vessels, collisions, property loss to the vessels, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, the operation of any ocean-going vessel is subject to the inherent possibility of catastrophic marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental incidents, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. Our wholly owned subsidiaries are responsible for arranging the insurance of our vessels on terms in line with standard industry practice. We are responsible for the payment of premiums. Our wholly owned subsidiaries have arranged for marine hull and machinery and war risks insurance, which includes the risk of actual or constructive total loss, and protection and indemnity insurance with mutual assurance associations. Our wholly owned subsidiaries may also arrange for loss of hire insurance in respect of each of our vessels, subject to the availability of such coverage at commercially reasonable terms. Loss of hire insurance generally provides coverage against business interruption following any loss under our hull and machinery policy. Currently, we have obtained loss of hire insurance that generally provides coverage against business interruption for periods of more than 60 days (up to a maximum of 180 days) following any loss under our hull and machinery policy (mechanical breakdown, grounding, collision or other incidence of damage that does not result in a total loss of the vessel). Currently, the amount of coverage for liability for pollution, spillage and leakage available to us on commercially reasonable terms through protection and indemnity associations and providers of excess coverage is $1 billion per vessel per occurrence. Protection and indemnity associations are mutual marine indemnity associations formed by shipowners to provide protection from large financial loss to one member by contribution towards that loss by all members. We believe that our anticipated insurance coverage will be adequate to protect us against the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that we will maintain appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage, consistent with standard industry practice. However, there is no assurance that all risks are adequately insured against, that any particular claims will be paid or that we will be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future following termination of the ship management agreements. INSPECTION BY A CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY Every commercial vessel’s hull and machinery is evaluated by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies 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. Each vessel is inspected by a surveyor of the classification society in three surveys of varying frequency and thoroughness: every year for the annual survey, every two to three years for intermediate surveys and every four to five years for special surveys. Should any defects be found, the classification surveyor will issue a “recommendation” for appropriate repairs which have to be made by the shipowner within the time limit prescribed. Vessels may be required, as part of the annual and intermediate survey process, to be drydocked for inspection of the underwater portions of the vessel and for necessary repair stemming from the inspection. Special surveys always require drydocking, whereas intermediate surveys require drydocking from the fourth intermediate survey, typically when a vessel turns 17.5 years of age. Each of our vessels has been certified as being “in class” by a member society of the International Association of Classification Societies, indicated in the table beginning on page 29 of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Government regulation significantly affects the ownership and operation of our tankers. They are subject to international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our tankers operate or are registered. Under our ship management agreements, the Technical Managers have assumed technical management responsibility for the vessels in our fleet, including responsibility for compliance with all government and other regulations. If our ship management agreements with the Technical Managers terminate, we would attempt to hire another party to assume this responsibility, which includes compliance with the regulations described herein and any costs associated with such compliance. However, in such event, we may be unable to hire another party to perform these and other services, and we may incur substantial costs to comply with environmental requirements. 31 Table of Contents A variety of governmental and private entities subject our tankers to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administration (country of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators and oil companies. Certain entities also require us to obtain permits, licenses and certificates for the operation of our tankers. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of our tankers. We believe that the heightened level of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers is leading to greater inspection and safety requirements on all tankers. Increasing environmental concerns may create demand for tankers that conform to the stricter environmental standards. Under our ship management agreements, the Technical Managers are required to maintain operating standards for our tankers that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with U.S. and international regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is currently in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations; however, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly stringent requirements, it is difficult to accurately predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our tankers. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impacts could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability. International Maritime Organization In September 1997, the IMO adopted MARPOL Annex VI to address air pollution from ships. Annex VI, which became effective in May 2005, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas, known as emission control areas, or “ECAs,” to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. Currently, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, certain coastal areas of North America and the U.S. Caribbean Sea are designated ECAs. The Mediterranean Sea became an ECA as of May 1, 2024, with compliance obligations going into effect as of May 1, 2025. In July 2010, the IMO amendments to Annex VI regarding emissions of sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide particulate matter and ozone depleting substances came into effect. These standards seek to reduce air pollution from vessels by, among other things, establishing a series of progressive standards to further limit the sulfur content of fuel oil and by establishing new standards to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, with a more stringent “Tier III” emission limit applicable to engines installed on or after January 1, 2016. As of January 1, 2020, all ships are required under the rules applying to sulfur content (commonly referred to as “IMO 2020”) to comply with a lower global sulfur limit by using fuel with a sulfur content of 0.5% m/m, by using liquefied natural gas for fuel, or by installing an exhaust gas cleaning system. As a result, ships must either use Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) to comply with the limit or continue to use heavy fuel oil in combination with an exhaust gas cleaning system. The U.S. ratified the Annex VI amendments in 2008, thereby rendering its emissions standards equivalent to IMO requirements. Please see the discussion of the U.S. Clean Air Act under “U.S. Requirements” below for information on the ECA designated in North America and the Hawaiian Islands. Under the International Safety Management Code, or “ISM Code,” promulgated by the IMO, the party with operational control of a vessel is required to develop 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 Technical Managers will rely upon their respective safety management systems. 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 operator has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. All requisite documents of compliance have been obtained with respect to the operators of all our vessels and safety management certificates have been issued for all our vessels for which the certificates are required by the IMO. These documents of compliance and safety management certificates are renewed as required. 32 Table of Contents Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or charterer to increased liability, lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and 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 are prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports. 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, or the “1969 Convention.” Some of these countries have also adopted the 1992 Protocol to the 1969 Convention, or the “1992 Protocol.” Under both the 1969 Convention and the 1992 Protocol, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable, subject to certain affirmative defenses, for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain complete defenses. These conventions also limit the liability of the shipowner under certain circumstances to specified amounts that have been revised from time to time and are subject to exchange rates. In addition, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, or BWM Convention, came into force in September 2017. The BWM Convention provides for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. As of the date of this report, all of our vessels have ballast water treatment systems installed. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Damage (the “Bunker Convention”), which became effective in November 2008, imposes strict liability on vessel owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of vessels over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance in specified amounts to cover liability for bunker fuel pollution damage. Each of our vessels has been issued a certificate attesting that insurance is in force in accordance with the Bunker Convention. IMO regulations also require owners and operators of vessels to adopt Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans, or “SOPEPs.” Periodic training and drills for response personnel and for vessels and their crews are required. In addition to SOPEPs, the Technical Managers have adopted Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans for our vessels, which cover potential releases not only of oil but of any noxious liquid substances. In June 2023, a sufficient number of contracting states ratified the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, which was initially adopted by the IMO in 2009. The Convention, which went into effect on June 26, 2025, introduces regulations covering the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships in order to facilitate recycling and the operation of ship recycling facilities and establishes an enforcement mechanism for ship recycling, incorporating certification and reporting requirements. Pursuant to the Convention, ships must have an Inventory of Hazardous Materials specific to each ship on board, which must be prepared and verified in line with IMO guidelines. In addition to that initial verification, ships will be subject to additional surveys during the life of the ship, and a final survey prior to recycling. In 2022, the IMO amended MARPOL Annex I to prohibit the use of Heavy Fuel Oil, or “HFO,” in Artic waters, which came into force in July 2024. The amendment prohibits the use of oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm2/s. Parties to MARPOL with coastlines bordering Arctic waters may temporarily waive the requirements for ships flying their flags while operating in waters subject to that Party’s sovereignty or jurisdiction until July 1, 2029. Our vessels do not typically operate in Arctic waters; however, if they do enter these waters, they will be required to comply with this prohibition. U.S. Requirements The U.S. regulates the tanker industry with an extensive regulatory and liability regime for environmental protection and cleanup of oil spills, consisting primarily of the OPA, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or “CERCLA.” OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade with the U.S., its territories or possessions, or whose vessels operate in the waters of the U.S., which include the U.S. territorial sea and the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone around the U.S. CERCLA applies to the discharge of hazardous substances (other than petroleum) whether on land or at sea. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our business operations. Under OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat or demise charterers are “responsible parties” who are liable, without regard to fault, for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages, including property and natural resource damages and economic loss without physical damage to property, arising from oil spills and pollution from their vessels. Per U.S. Coast Guard regulation, limits of liability under OPA are equal to the greater of $2,500 per gross ton or $21.5 million for any double-hull tanker, such as our vessels, that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation). CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA for a release or incident involving a release of hazardous substances is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for any other vessel. These OPA and CERCLA limits of liability do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, refusal to report the incident or refusal to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities. 33 Table of Contents OPA specifically permits individual U.S. coastal states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills. OPA also 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 the Act. The U.S. Coast Guard has enacted regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the aggregate limits of liability described above for OPA and CERCLA. Under the regulations, evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance, guaranty or an alternative method subject to approval by the Director of the U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center. Under OPA regulations, an owner or operator of more than one tanker is required to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for the entire fleet in an amount equal only to the financial responsibility requirement of the tanker having the greatest maximum strict liability under OPA and CERCLA. The Technical Managers have provided the requisite guarantees and received certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard for each of our tankers that are required to have one. We have arranged insurance for each of our tankers with pollution liability insurance in the amount of $1 billion. However, a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available, in which event there could be a material adverse effect on our business and on the Technical Managers’ business, which could impair the Technical Managers’ ability to manage our vessels. OPA also amended the federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”), to require owners and operators of vessels to adopt vessel response plans for reporting and responding to oil spill scenarios up to a “worst case” scenario and to identify and ensure, through contracts or other approved means, the availability of necessary private response resources to respond to a “worst case discharge.” In addition, periodic training programs and drills for shore and response personnel and for vessels and their crews are required. Vessel response plans for our tankers operating in the waters of the U.S. have been approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has proposed similar regulations requiring certain vessels to prepare response plans for the release of hazardous substances. The CWA prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages. Furthermore, most U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted laws that impose strict liability for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law. The EPA regulates the discharge of ballast water and other substances in U.S. waters under the CWA. Effective February 6, 2009, EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing and recreational vessels) to comply with a Vessel General Permit, or “VGP,” authorizing ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the operation of vessels. The VGP requires owners and operators to comply with a range of best management practices, reporting requirements and other standards for a number of vessel discharges. The current VGP, which became effective in December 2013, contains stringent requirements, including numeric ballast water discharge limits (that generally align with the most recent U.S. Coast Guard standards issued in 2012), requirements to ensure ballast water treatment systems are functioning correctly, and stringent limits for oil to sea interfaces and exhaust gas cleaning system wastewater. Vessels calling U.S. ports have been required to have Coast Guard approved ballast water management systems installed by their first regular drydocking since January 2016, with few exceptions. The 2013 VGP was originally effective through December 2018, and was amended by the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or “VIDA,” enacted on December 4, 2018, required the EPA and Coast Guard to develop new performance standards and enforcement regulations and extends the 2013 VGP provisions until new regulations become final and enforceable. On October 9, 2024, the EPA published the final Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance pursuant to VIDA, which set discharge standards that are as least as stringent as the VGP. These new standards will be made effective and enforceable through corresponding U.S. Coast Guard regulations, which must be promulgated within two years of the rule’s publication. Until the Coast Guard’s regulations are final and enforceable, vessels will continue to be subject to the existing discharge requirements under the VGP. U.S. Coast Guard regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in U.S. waters, including limits regarding ballast water releases. 34 Table of Contents The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990, 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. In April 2010, the EPA adopted new emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to MARPOL. The emission standards apply in two stages: near-term standards apply to engines constructed on or after January 1, 2011, and long-term standards, requiring an 80% reduction in nitrogen dioxides (NOx), apply to engines constructed on or after January 1, 2016. Compliance with these standards may cause us to incur costs to install control equipment on our vessels. The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards. Several SIPs regulate emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. As indicated above, our vessels operating in covered port areas are already equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these existing requirements. Under regulations that became effective in January 1, 2014, vessels sailing within 24 miles of the California coastline whose itineraries call for them to enter any California ports, terminal facilities, or internal or estuarine waters must use marine fuels with a sulfur content equal to or less than 0.1% m/m (1,000 ppm). The IMO’s Maritime Environmental Protection Committee, or “MEPC,” has designated the area extending 200 miles from the U.S. and Canadian territorial sea baseline adjacent to the Atlantic/Gulf and Pacific coasts and the eight main Hawaiian Islands as an ECA under the MARPOL Annex VI amendments. As of January 1, 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in the ECA cannot exceed 0.1% m/m sulfur. Effective January 1, 2016, NOx after-treatment requirements also apply. Additional ECAs include the Baltic Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Caribbean Sea. The Mediterranean Sea became an ECA as of May 1, 2024, with compliance obligations going into effect on May 1, 2025. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the EPA or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations. European Union Tanker Restrictions The European Union has adopted legislation that will: (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. 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% m/m maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in EU ports, effective January 1, 2010. Greenhouse Gas Regulation Concerns surrounding climate change may lead certain international or multinational bodies or individual countries to propose and/or adopt new climate change initiatives. For example, in 2015 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, adopted the Paris Agreement, an international framework with the intent of reducing global GHG emissions. In October 2016, the EU formally ratified the Paris Agreement, thus establishing its entry into force on November 4, 2016. Although the Paris Agreement does not require parties to the agreement to adopt emissions controls for the shipping industry, a new treaty or other applicable requirements could be adopted in the future that includes such restrictions. 35 Table of Contents Additionally, the MEPC has implemented two energy efficiency standards for new and currently operating vessels – the Energy Efficiency Design Index and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan, which entered into force in January 2013. Effective January 1, 2018, the EU’s MRV Regulation requires all ships over 5,000 tons loading or unloading cargo or passengers in EU ports to monitor, report and verify their carbon dioxide emissions. MEPC also finalized and adopted amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) Annex VI that will require ships to reduce their GHG emissions. These amendments combine technical and operational approaches to improve the energy efficiency of ships, and provide important building blocks for future GHG reduction measures. On November 1, 2022, carbon intensity measures came into force that require ships to calculate their EEXI, which indicates a ship’s efficiency compared to a specified baseline, and their annual operational CII and CII rating. The EEXI could require us to implement technical steps, such as power limitations or installations of technical features, to improve the energy efficiency of our ships. The CII rating is on a scale from A to E, with E as the lowest score. If our ships rate D for three consecutive years or E for a single year, we must develop corrective action plans to achieve the required annual operational CII. None of our ships have been rated as D for three consecutive years or E for a single year; thus, we have not been required to develop any corrective action plans. Such plans, if required, may include potentially significant capital expenditures and investments for existing ships to stay in compliance. The CII will be calculated annually and implemented as an operational carbon intensity measure to benchmark and improve efficiency. On January 1, 2023, it became mandatory for ships to calculate their EEXI and initiate the collection of data for reporting their CII and CII rating. In 2018, the IMO adopted an initial GHG reduction strategy that established levels of ambition for shipping emissions reductions that are subject to ongoing reviews by the organization. In July 2023, the IMO adopted the 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, which builds upon the initial strategy’s levels of ambition. The revised levels of ambition include (1) further decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through improvement of energy efficiency; (2) reducing carbon intensity of international shipping; (3) increasing adoption of zero or near-zero emissions technologies, fuels, and energy sources; and (4) achieving net zero GHG emissions from international shipping. Furthermore, at its meeting in April 2025, MEPC 83 advanced mid-term GHG reduction measures to implement the IMO net-zero framework. These initiatives include a goal-based marine fuel standard, phasing in fuels with less GHG intensity and a global GHG emission pricing mechanism, and are scheduled for further consideration for adoption in October 2026. If adopted, it will potentially enter into force in 2028 with potential enforcement on vessels starting early 2029. These regulations could cause additional substantial expenses to be incurred. In the EU, greenhouse gas emissions are regulated under the EU Emissions Trading System (the “EU ETS”), an EU-wide trading scheme that implements GHG emissions pricing. While the shipping industry had not been subject to the EU ETS in the past, in May 2023, EU ETS regulations were amended in order to include emissions from maritime transport activities in the EU ETS and to require the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions of additional greenhouse gases and emissions from additional ship types. In January 2024, the EU ETS began to cover CO2 emissions from all large ships (of 5,000 gross tonnage and above) entering EU and European Economic Area (“EEA”) ports, and will apply to methane and nitrous oxide emissions beginning in 2026. Shipping companies will need to buy or receive allowances that correspond to the emissions covered by the system. Emissions from voyages and port calls within the EU and EEA will be fully accounted for in the EU ETS, while half of the emissions during voyages and port calls from and to non-EU countries will be covered. Under the gradual phase-in period introduced by the EU, shipping companies must surrender allowances corresponding to 70% of their covered emissions for 2025 and 100% of their covered emissions for 2026 and onwards. As of January 2025, all large ships (of 5,000 gross tonnage and above) entering EU and EEA ports have to comply with the FuelEU Maritime Regulation (the “FuelEU”). FuelEU sets “well-to-wake” GHG emission intensity requirements for energy used on board. The GHG intensity requirement applies to 100% of energy used on voyages and port calls within the EU and EEA, and 50% of energy used on voyages into or out of the EU and EEA. The term “well-to-wake” refers to the entire process of fuel production, delivery and use onboard ships, and all emissions produced from such processes. The yearly average GHG intensity of energy used on board, measured as GHG emissions per energy unit (gCO2e/MJ), must be less than an applicable threshold. The GHG intensity threshold will be subject to a five-year percentage reduction with respect to a reference value, which is based on the average energy used onboard in 2020, reported in the EU Monitoring Reporting and Verification data of that year, which was 91.16 gCO2e/MJ. 36 Table of Contents In November 2024, the United Kingdom expanded the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, a GHG emissions pricing framework specific to the UK, to include GHG emissions from domestic maritime shipping activity. Beginning in 2026, the expansion will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tons or higher. While the current legislation applies only to domestic shipping and excludes international voyages calling at UK ports, the UK ETS Authority is currently consulting with stakeholders on the potential inclusion of international maritime voyages starting or ending in the UK. This proposed expansion, which could take effect from 2028, would subject such international voyages to the UK ETS carbon price on 50% of their emissions. The U.S. has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile and large stationary sources. Although these regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from ships, the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels in the future. Any adoption of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, EU, the U.S. or other countries or jurisdictions where we operate, or any treaty adopted or amended at the international level that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases, could require us to make significant financial expenditures or otherwise impact our vessels or their operation in ways that we cannot predict with certainty at this time. VESSEL SECURITY REGULATIONS A number of initiatives have been introduced to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the “MTSA”) was signed into law. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations in July 2003 requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. This new chapter came into effect in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”). The ISPS Code requires vessels to develop and maintain a ship security plan that provides security measures to address potential threats to the security of ships or port facilities. Although each of our vessels is ISPS Code-certified, any failure to comply with the ISPS Code or maintain such certifications may subject us to increased liability and may result in denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Furthermore, compliance with the ISPS Code requires us to incur certain costs. Although such costs have not been material to date, if new or more stringent regulations relating to the ISPS Code are adopted by the IMO and the flag states, these requirements could require significant additional capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations. Among the various requirements are: • on-board installation of automatic information systems to enhance vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-shore communications; • on-board installation of ship security alert systems; • the development of ship security plans; and • compliance with flag state security certification requirements. The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures; provided such vessels have on board a valid “International Ship Security Certificate” that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures required by the IMO, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and have approved ISPS certificates and plans certified by the applicable flag state on board all our vessels. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The nature of our business, which involves the acquisition, chartering and ownership of our vessels, exposes us to the risk of lawsuits for damages or penalties relating to, among other things, personal injury, property casualty and environmental contamination. Under rules related to maritime proceedings, certain claimants may be entitled to attach charter hire payable to us in certain circumstances. There are no actions or claims pending against us as of the date of this report. 37 Table of Contents C. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The following table sets forth our significant subsidiaries and the vessels owned or operated by each of those subsidiaries, if any, as of December 31, 2025. Subsidiary Vessel State of Jurisdiction or Incorporation Percent of ownership DHT Management S.A.M. Monaco 99%1 DHT Management AS Norway 100% DHT Ship Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Singapore 100% DHT Chartering (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Singapore 100% Goodwood Ship Management Pte. Ltd. Singapore 100% DHT Addax, Inc.2 DHT Addax Marshall Islands 100% DHT Antelope, Inc.2 DHT Antelope Marshall Islands 100% DHT Appaloosa, Inc. DHT Appaloosa Marshall Islands 100% DHT Bauhinia, Inc.3 DHT Bauhinia Marshall Islands 100% DHT Bronco, Inc. DHT Bronco Marshall Islands 100% DHT Colt, Inc. DHT Colt Marshall Islands 100% DHT Gazelle, Inc.2 DHT Gazelle Marshall Islands 100% DHT Harrier Inc. DHT Harrier Marshall Islands 100% DHT Impala, Inc.2 DHT Impala Marshall Islands 100% DHT Jaguar Limited DHT Jaguar Marshall Islands 100% DHT Leopard Limited DHT Leopard Marshall Islands 100% DHT Lion Limited DHT Lion Marshall Islands 100% DHT Mustang, Inc. DHT Mustang Marshall Islands 100% DHT Nokota, Inc. DHT Nokota Marshall Islands 100% DHT Opal, Inc. DHT Opal Marshall Islands 100% DHT Osprey Inc. DHT Osprey Marshall Islands 100% DHT Panther Limited DHT Panther Marshall Islands 100% DHT Puma Limited DHT Puma Marshall Islands 100% DHT Stallion, Inc. DHT Stallion Marshall Islands 100% DHT Tiger Limited DHT Tiger Marshall Islands 100% Samco Delta Ltd.3 DHT Europe Marshall Islands 100% Samco Epsilon Ltd.3 DHT China Marshall Islands 100% Samco Eta Ltd. DHT Amazon Marshall Islands 100% Samco Iota Ltd. DHT Taiga Marshall Islands 100% Samco Kappa Ltd. DHT Redwood Marshall Islands 100% Samco Theta Ltd. DHT Sundarbans Marshall Islands 100% 1 The remaining 1% of DHT Management S.A.M is owned by the President & Chief Executive Officer 2 Subsidiaries related to newbuilding contracts. Vessels are scheduled for delivery in 2026. 3 Subsidiaries related to vessels sold or agreed to be sold as of the date of this report. D. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT Refer to “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet” above for a discussion of our property, plant and equipment.