DLNG 20-F Report ended Dec. 31, 2014

i

ii

iii

iv

v

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

The vessels we own or manage could be required by our charterers' instructions to call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the United States and other governments.

Although no vessels operated by us have called on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and countries identified by the U.S. government 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 our charterers' instructions. The U.S. 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. In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, or CISADA, which expanded the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act. Among other things, CISADA expands the application of the prohibitions to companies such as ours and introduces limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to the investment, supply or export of refined petroleum or petroleum products. In addition, in 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13608 which prohibits foreign persons from violating or attempting to violate, or causing a violation of any sanctions in effect against Iran or facilitating any deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject to U.S. sanctions. Any persons found to be in violation of Executive Order 13608 will be deemed a foreign sanctions evader and will be banned from all contacts with the United States, including conducting business in U.S. dollars. Also in 2012, President Obama signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, or the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which created new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions. Among other things, the Iran Threat Reduction Act intensifies existing sanctions regarding the provision of goods, services, infrastructure or technology to Iran's petroleum or petrochemical sector. The Iran Threat Reduction Act also includes a provision requiring the President of the United States to impose five or more sanctions from Section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act, as amended, on a person the President determines is a controlling beneficial owner of, or otherwise owns, operates, or controls or insures a vessel that was used to transport crude oil from Iran to another country and (1) if the person is a controlling beneficial owner of the vessel, the person had actual knowledge the vessel was so used or (2) if the person otherwise owns, operates, or controls, or insures the vessel, the person knew or should have known the vessel was so used. Such a person could be subject to a variety of sanctions, including exclusion from U.S. capital markets, exclusion from financial transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and exclusion of that person's vessels from U.S. ports for up to two years.

---

On November 24, 2013, the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China) entered into an interim agreement with Iran entitled the "Joint Plan of Action" ("JPOA"). Under the JPOA it was agreed that, in exchange for Iran taking certain voluntary measures to ensure that its nuclear program is used only for peaceful purposes, the U.S. and EU would voluntarily suspend certain sanctions for a period of six months. On January 20, 2014, the U.S. and E.U. indicated that they would begin implementing the temporary relief measures provided for under the JPOA. These measures include, among other things, the suspension of certain sanctions on the Iranian petrochemicals, precious metals, and automotive industries from January 20, 2014 until July 20, 2014. The U.S. initially extended the JPOA until November 24, 2014 and has since extended it until June 30, 2015. Although it is our intention to comply with the provisions of the JPOA, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future as such regulations and U.S. sanctions may be amended over time, and the U.S. retains the authority to revoke the aforementioned relief if Iran fails to meet its commitments under the JPOA.

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 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. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or to divest from, our common units may adversely affect the price at which our common units trade. Moreover, 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. In addition, our reputation and the market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters with individuals or entities in countries subject to U.S. sanctions and embargo laws that are not controlled by the governments of those countries, or engaging in operations associated with those countries pursuant to contracts with third parties that are unrelated to those countries or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of our common units may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries. In addition, charterers and other parties that we have previously entered into contracts with regarding our vessels may be affiliated with persons or entities that are now or may soon be the subject of sanctions imposed by the Obama administration and/or the European Union or other international bodies in 2014 in response to recent events relating to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine.  If we determine that such sanctions require us to terminate existing contracts or if we are found to be in violation of such sanctions, we may suffer reputational harm and our results of operations may be adversely affected.

---

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, resulting in loss of earnings.

The government of a jurisdiction where one or more of our vessels are registered could requisition for title or seize our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a ship and becomes its owner. Also, a government could requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a ship and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition ships in other circumstances. Although we would expect to be entitled to government compensation in the event of a requisition of one or more of our vessels, the amount and timing of payments, if any, would be uncertain. A government requisition of one or more of our vessels would result in off-hire days under our time charters and may cause us to breach covenants in debt agreements, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, including cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

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

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a claimant may seek to obtain security for its claim by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of money to have the arrest or attachment lifted. In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the "sister ship" theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel which is subject to the claimant's maritime lien and any "associated" vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could attempt to assert "sister ship" liability against a vessel in our Fleet for claims relating to another of our vessels.

We may be subject to litigation that could have an adverse effect on us.

We may in the future be involved from time to time in litigation matters. These matters may include, among other things, contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, toxic tort claims, employment matters and governmental claims for taxes or duties as well as other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any claim or other litigation matter. The ultimate outcome of any litigation matter and the potential costs associated with prosecuting or defending such lawsuits, including the diversion of management's attention to these matters, could have an adverse effect on us and, in the event of litigation that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on us, could lead to an event of default under our credit facilities.

---

Risks Relating to our Common Units

The price of our common units may be volatile.

The price of our common units may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors including:

·

our payment of cash distributions to our unitholders;

·

actual or anticipated fluctuations in quarterly and annual results;

·

fluctuations in the seaborne transportation industry, including fluctuations in the LNG carrier market;

·

mergers and strategic alliances in the shipping industry;

·

changes in governmental regulations or maritime self-regulatory organization standards;

·

shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecasted by securities analysts; announcements concerning us or our competitors;

·

the failure of securities analysts to publish research about us, or analysts making changes in their financial estimates;

·

general economic conditions;

·

terrorist acts;

·

future sales of our units or other securities;

·

investors' perception of us and the LNG shipping industry;

·

the general state of the securities market; and

·

other developments affecting us, our industry or our competitors.

Securities markets worldwide are experiencing significant price and volume fluctuations. The market price for our common units may also be volatile. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market or political conditions, could reduce the market price of our common units in spite of our operating performance.

---

Increases in interest rates may cause the market price of our common units to decline.

An increase in interest rates may cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments in general. Any such increase in interest rates or reduction in demand for our common units resulting from other relatively more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common units to decline.

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.

Under some circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under the Marshall Islands Limited Partnership Act, or the Marshall Islands Act, we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Marshall Islands law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Marshall Islands law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Assignees who become substituted limited partners are liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the Partnership that are known to the assignee at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the Partnership Agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interest and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

We have been organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of partnership law.

We are organized in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of case law or bankruptcy law and, as a result, unitholders may have fewer rights and protections under Marshall Islands law than under a typical jurisdiction in the United States. Our partnership affairs are governed by our Partnership Agreement and by the Marshall Islands Act. The provisions of the Marshall Islands Act resemble the limited partnership laws of a number of states in the United States, most notably Delaware. The Marshall Islands Act also provides that it is to be applied and construed to make it uniform with the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act and, so long as it does not conflict with the Marshall Islands Act or decisions of the Marshall Islands courts, interpreted according to the non-statutory law (or case law) of the State of Delaware. There have been, however, few, if any, court cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the Marshall Islands Act, in contrast to Delaware, which has a fairly well-developed body of case law interpreting its limited partnership statute. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether Marshall Islands courts would reach the same conclusions as the courts in Delaware. For example, the rights of our unitholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our General Partner under Marshall Islands law are not as clearly established as under judicial precedent in existence in Delaware. As a result, unitholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by our General Partner and its officers and directors than would unitholders of a similarly organized limited partnership in the United States. Further, the Republic of the Marshall Islands does not have a well-developed body of bankruptcy law. As such, in the case of a bankruptcy of our Partnership, there may be a delay of bankruptcy proceedings and the ability of unitholders and creditors to receive recovery after a bankruptcy proceeding.

---

We are a "foreign private issuer" under New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, rules, and as such we are entitled to exemption from certain corporate governance standards of the NYSE applicable to domestic companies, and holders of our common units may not have the same protections afforded to unitholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

We are a "foreign private issuer" under the securities laws of the United States and the rules of the NYSE. Under the securities laws of the United States, "foreign private issuers" are subject to different disclosure requirements than U.S. domiciled registrants, as well as different financial reporting requirements. Under the NYSE rules, a "foreign private issuer" is subject to less stringent corporate governance requirements. Subject to certain exceptions, the rules of the NYSE permit a "foreign private issuer" to follow its home country practice in lieu of the listing requirements of the NYSE.

A majority of our directors qualify as independent under the NYSE director independence requirements. However, we cannot assure you that we will continue to maintain an independent board in the future. In addition, we may have one or more non-independent directors serving as committee members on our compensation committee. As a result, non-independent directors may among other things, participate in fixing the compensation of our management, making share and option awards and resolving governance issues regarding our Partnership.

Accordingly, in the future holders of our common units may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

For a description of our corporate governance practices, please see "Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees."

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

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

---

Our Partnership Agreement designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum, unless otherwise provided for by Marshall Islands law, for certain litigation that may be initiated by our unitholders, which could limit our unitholders' ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with the Partnership.

Our Partnership Agreement provides that, unless otherwise provided for by Marshall Islands law, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any claims that:

·

arise out of or relate in any way to the Partnership Agreement (including any claims, suits or actions to interpret, apply or enforce the provisions of the Partnership Agreement or the duties, obligations or liabilities among limited partners or of limited partners to us, or the rights or powers of, or restrictions on, the limited partners or us);

·

are brought in a derivative manner on our behalf;

·

assert a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of us or our General Partner, or owed by our General Partner, to us or the limited partners;

·

assert a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Partnership Act; or

·

assert a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine

regardless of whether such claims, suits, actions or proceedings sound in contract, tort, fraud or otherwise, are based on common law, statutory, equitable, legal or other grounds, or are derivative or direct claims. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in our common units shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions described above. This forum selection provision may limit our unitholders' ability to obtain a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees or unitholders.

Substantial future sales of our common units could cause the market price of our common units to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of our common units in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, may depress the market price for our common units. These sales could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity securities in the future.

The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity securities would have the following effects:

·

our existing unitholders' proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;

---

·

the distribution amount payable per unit on our common units may be lower;

·

the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and

·

the market price of our common units may decline.

Provisions in our organizational documents may have anti-takeover effects.

Our Partnership Agreement contains provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our Board of Directors. These provisions require approval of our Board of Directors and prior consent of our General Partner.

These provisions could also make it difficult for our unitholders to replace or remove our current Board of Directors or could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing an offer by a third party to acquire us, even if the third party's offer may be considered beneficial by many unitholders. As a result, unitholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their common units.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, please see "Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation" for a more complete discussion of the material Marshall Islands and United States federal income tax consequences of owning and disposing of our common units.

We may be subject to taxes, which will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We and our subsidiaries may be subject to tax in the jurisdictions in which we are organized or operate, reducing the amount of cash available for distribution. In computing our tax obligation in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that upon review of these positions the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries, further reducing the cash available for distribution. 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. Please see "Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation"

---

We may have to pay tax on United States-source income, which would reduce our earnings and cash flow.

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code") the United States source gross transportation income of a ship-owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves, generally is subject to a 4% United States federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax 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% of the gross shipping income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States.

Based on advice we received from Seward & Kissel LLP, our United States counsel, we believe we qualified for this statutory tax exemption for our taxable year ended December 31, 2014, and we intend to take this position for United States federal income tax reporting purposes. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption in future taxable years and thereby become subject to the 4% United States federal income tax described above.  It is noted that holders of our common units are limited to owning 4.9% of the voting power of such common units.  Assuming that such limitation is treated as effective for purposes of determining voting power under Section 883, then our 5% Unitholders could not own 50% of more of our common units.  If contrary to these expectations, our 5% Unitholders were to own 50% or more of the common units, we would not qualify for exemption under Section 883 unless we could establish that among the closely-held group of 5% Unitholders, there are sufficient 5% Unitholders that are qualified stockholders for purposes of Section 883 to preclude non-qualified 5% Unitholders in the closely-held group from owning 50% or more of our common units for more than half the number of days during the taxable year. In order to establish this, sufficient 5% Unitholders that are qualified stockholders would have to comply with certain documentation and certification requirements designed to substantiate their identity as qualified stockholders. These requirements are onerous and there can be no assurance that we would be able to satisfy them. The imposition of this taxation could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings and cash available for distribution payments to our unitholders. For a more detailed discussion, see "Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation."

---

United States tax authorities could treat us as a "passive foreign investment company," which would have adverse United States federal income tax consequences to United States unitholders.

A non-U.S. entity treated as a corporation for United States 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% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of "passive income" or at least 50% 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 United States 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, and on an opinion of our United States counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP, we believe that we were not a PFIC in the year ended December 31, 2014 and will not be a PFIC for any future taxable year. We have received an opinion of our United States counsel in support of this position that concludes that the income our subsidiaries earned from certain of our time-chartering activities should not constitute passive income for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. In addition, we have represented to our United States counsel that we expect that more than 25% of our gross income for the year ended December 31, 2014 and each future year will arise from such time-chartering activities or other income which does not constitute passive income, and more than 50% of the average value of our assets for each such year will be held for the production of such nonpassive income. Assuming the composition of our income and assets is consistent with these expectations, and assuming the accuracy of other representations we have made to our United States counsel for purposes of their opinion, our United States counsel is of the opinion that we should not be a PFIC for the year ended December 31, 2014 year or any future year. This opinion is based and its accuracy is conditioned on representations, valuations and projections provided by us regarding our assets, income and charters to our United States counsel. While we believe these representations, valuations and projections to be accurate, the shipping market is volatile and no assurance can be given that they will continue to be accurate at any time in the future.

While Seward & Kissel LLP, our United States counsel, has provided us with an opinion in support of our position, the conclusions reached are not free from doubt, and it is possible that the United States Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, or a court could disagree with this position. 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 you that the nature of our operations will not change in the future and that we will not become a PFIC in any taxable year. If the IRS were to find 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. unitholders would face adverse United States federal income tax consequences.  See "Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation" for a more detailed discussion of the United States federal income tax consequences to United States unitholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

---

ITEM 4.

INFORMATION ON THE PARTNERSHIP

A.	HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP

Dynagas LNG Partners LP was organized as a limited partnership in the Republic of the Marshall Islands on May 29, 2013 to own, operate, and acquire LNG carriers. In October 2013, we acquired from our Sponsor three LNG carriers, the Clean Energy , the Ob River and the Clean Force , which we refer to as our Initial Fleet, in exchange for 6,735,000 of our common units and all of our subordinated units.  In November 2013, we completed our underwritten IPO of 8,250,000 common units, together with 4,250,000 common units offered by our Sponsor, at $18.00 per common unit, and in December 2013, the underwriters in the IPO exercised in full their option to purchase an additional 1,875,000 common units from our Sponsor.

In connection with the closing of our IPO, we entered into the following agreements: (i) an Omnibus Agreement with our Sponsor and our General Partner that provided us with the right to purchase seven LNG carrier vessels from our Sponsor, which we refer to as the Optional Vessels, within 24 months of their delivery to our Sponsor at a purchase price to be determined pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Omnibus Agreement; (ii) a $30.0 million revolving credit facility with our Sponsor to be used for general partnership purposes; and (iii) a 262.1 million Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility, or the 2013 Senior Credit  Facility.

In June 2014, we completed our underwritten public offering of 4,800,000 common units at $22.79 common per unit, and on June 18, 2014, the underwriters in the offering exercised their option to purchase an additional 720,000 common units at the same price.

In June 2014, we completed the acquisition of the Arctic Aurora , an Optional Vessel that is a 2013 built ice class liquefied natural gas carrier, and the related time charter contract, from our Sponsor for a purchase price of $235.0 million. We funded a portion of the purchase price by refinancing our 2013 Senior Credit Facility with our 2014 Senior Credit Facility.

In September 2014, we completed our underwritten public offering of $250.0 million aggregate principal amount 6.25% Senior Notes due 2019, or our 2019 Notes.  The 2019 Notes commenced trading on the NYSE on December 30, 2014 under the ticker symbol "DLNG 19."

In September 2014, we completed the acquisition of the Yenisei River , an Optional Vessel that is a 2013 built ice class liquefied natural gas carrier, and the related time charter contract, from our Sponsor for a purchase price of $257.5 million.

In December 2014, we voluntarily transferred the listing of our common units representing limited partnership interests to the NYSE from the Nasdaq Global Select Market, or NASDAQ.  Our common units ceased trading on NASDAQ effective at the close of business on December 29, 2014 and commenced trading on the NYSE on December 30, 2014.  Our common units continue to trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "DLNG."

---

On February 14, 2014, we paid a partial cash distribution for the fourth quarter of 2013 of $0.1746 per unit, prorated from the IPO closing date through December 31, 2013.  This distribution corresponded to a quarterly distribution of $0.365 per outstanding unit, which is consistent with the Partnership's minimum quarterly distribution.  During the period from May 12, 2014 through and including February 12, 2015, we declared and paid total cash distributions of $1.5425 on a per unit basis to all unitholders for each of the four quarters in the year ended December 31, 2014. See "Item 8. Financial Information—A. Consolidated Statements and other Financial Information—Our Cash Distribution Policy."

Our principal executive offices are located at 97 Poseidonos Avenue & 2 Foivis Street, Glyfada, 16674 Greece and our telephone number at that address is 011 30 210 89 17 960.  Our common units trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "DLNG" and our 2019 Notes trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "DLNG 19."

B.	BUSINESS OVERVIEW

---

Our Fleet

We currently own and operate a fleet of five LNG carriers, consisting of the three LNG carriers in our Initial Fleet, the Clean Energy , the Ob River and the Clean Force, and two 2013-built Ice Class LNG carriers that we acquired from our Sponsor in 2014, the Arctic Aurora and the Yenisei River, which we refer to collectively as our "Fleet." The vessels in our Fleet are employed under multi-year charters with BG Group, Gazprom and Statoil with an average remaining charter term of approximately 5.0 years, as of March 6, 2015.  All of the vessels in our Fleet other than the Clean Energy have been assigned with Lloyds Register Ice Class notation 1A FS, or Ice Class, designation for hull and machinery and are fully winterized, which means that they are designed to call at ice-bound and harsh environment terminals and to withstand temperatures up to minus 30 degrees Celsius.  According to Drewry, only nine LNG carriers, representing 2.25% of the LNG vessels in the global LNG fleet, have an Ice Class 1A designation or equivalent rating. Moreover, we are the only company in the world that is currently transiting the Northern Sea Route, which is a shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean entirely in Arctic waters, with LNG carriers. In addition, we believe that each of the vessels in our Fleet is optimally sized with a carrying capacity of between approximately 150,000 and 155,000 cbm, which allows us to maximize operational flexibility as such medium-to-large size LNG vessels are compatible with most existing LNG terminals around the world. We believe that these specifications enhance our trading capabilities and future employment opportunities because they provide greater diversity in the trading routes available to our charterers.

---

---

---

Our Chartering Strategy and Charterers

We seek to employ our vessels on multi-year time charters with international energy companies that provide us with the benefits of stable cash flows and high utilization rates. We charter our vessels for a fixed period of time at daily rates that are generally fixed, but which could contain a variable component to adjust for, among other things, inflation and/or to offset the effects of increases in operating expenses.

---

The Clean Energy and the Clean Force are currently chartered to BG Group under time charter contracts with an average remaining term of approximately 1.2 years and a contractual backlog of $72.5 million, in aggregate, based on the earliest redelivery permitted under our charters as of March 6, 2015. BG Group engages in exploration and production of gas and oil reserves, export, shipping and import of LNG, pipeline transmission and distribution of gas, and various gas-powered electricity generation projects. BG Group operates in 23 countries on five continents. BG Group operates in the Atlantic Basin, with liquefaction and/or regasification activities on stream or in development in Chile, Egypt, Italy, Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Ob River and the Yenisei River are currently chartered to Gazprom under time charter contracts with an average remaining term of approximately 3.0 years and a contractual backlog of $185.4 million, in aggregate, based on the earliest redelivery permitted under our charters as of March 6, 2015. On April 17, 2014, we entered into a new 13-year time-charter contract with Gazprom with respect to the Clean Force which is expected to commence in July 2015 shortly after the early expiration of the current charter with BG Group. Including the Clean Force time charter the average remaining term and contractual backlog of our time charters with Gazprom is approximately 6.3 years and $496.6 million, respectively.  Gazprom is a global energy company focused on geological exploration, production, transportation, storage, processing and marketing of gas and other hydrocarbons as well as electric power and heat energy production and distribution. Gazprom possesses the world's largest natural gas reserves estimated by Gazprom at 35 trillion cubic meters.

The Arctic Aurora is currently chartered to Statoil under a time charter contract with an average remaining term of approximately 3.5 years and a contractual backlog of $95.5 million based on the earliest redelivery permitted under this charter as of March 6, 2015.

In the year ended December 31, 2014, we received all of our revenues from three charterers, which individually accounted for 50%, 36% and 14% of our revenues, respectively, as compared to two in the same period in 2013 which individually accounted for 61% and 39% respectively, of our revenues in 2013.

Related Party Transactions

For a description of our Management Agreements, Administrative Services Agreement and Executive Services Agreement, please see "Item 7. Major Unitholders and Related Party Transactions—B. Related Party Transactions."

---

Class	Standard
1A Super (1AS)	Design notional level ice thickness of 1.0m. For extreme harsh ice conditions.
1A	Design notional level ice thickness of 0.8m. For harsh ice conditions.
1B	Design notional level ice thickness of 0.6m. For medium ice conditions.
1C	Design notional level ice thickness of 0.4m. For mild ice conditions.

---

The FSICR and the system of ice navigation operated during the winter months in the Northern Baltic are the most well developed criteria and standards for ice navigation. The system of ice navigation comprises three fundamental elements:

·

Ice class merchant vessels (compliant with the FSICR for navigation in the northern Baltic);

·

Fairway navigation channels; and

·

Ice breaker assistance.

Year-round navigation and continuity of trade using the above three fundamental elements was first introduced in the northern Baltic sea areas during the 1960s, and the current FSICR Rule set, as well as the system of ice navigation, has evolved over the years to its current state.

Requirement for Ice Class Tonnage

The FSICR include technical requirements for hull and machinery scantlings as well as for the minimum propulsion power of ships. The hull of ice class vessels and the main propulsion machinery must be safe. The vessel must have sufficient power for safe operation in ice-covered waters. During the vessels' normal operations, they encounter various ice interaction loadings, which calls for strengthened hull structures.

In addition to class rules, ships have to fulfill requirements set by maritime authorities in various jurisdictions. For example, the Russian marine operations headquarters accept ships with ice-strengthening according to or at least the equivalent of FSICR 1B to operate in the Northern Sea Route, or the NSR, if they fulfill additional requirements on crewing and icebreaker assistance.

Ice Class LNG Fleet

The number of ships in the international LNG fleet with an ice class standard is very low. As of February 2015, there were only 9 LNG carriers with Ice Class 1A standard in operation and a further 2 vessels with Ice Class 1A on order. The only company to date that has experience with and performed NSR transits with LNG carriers is Dynagas Ltd.

Northern Sea Route

Currently there are two major cargo flows that dominate the NSR: oil and gas exports and the export of minerals, in particular coal and ore. The demand for shipping these commodities in the region has been increasing in recent years, driven by several key factors:

·

decreased level of sea ice has lengthened the summer shipping season in the Arctic and is making some areas more navigable;

·

increase in mineral resource development in the Arctic;

·

commodity demand growth in Asia and high commodity prices;

·

technological developments which have made NSR a more feasible shipping route than in the past; and

·

chronic political problems in the Middle East, piracy in North Africa and non-transparent commercial disputes over the Suez in Egypt.

These factors have made NSR a promising alternative.

---

Northern Sea Route

Source: Drewry

As a result, the NSR has experienced exponential growth in trade volumes in the last three years. The table below illustrates this development. The year 2013 set a record both in the number of vessels and in the amount of cargoes registered on this route, although provisional data suggests that traffic levels dropped in 2014.

Northern Sea Route—Seaborne Traffic

Source: Drewry, Centre for High North Logistics

As of today the most suitable LNG terminal for loading LNG for transport to the Far East is located in Northern Norway. The NSR to Japan is shorter than traditional shipping routes generally sailing through the Suez Canal. The Arctic route allows ships to save on time, fuel, and environmental emissions. In Northern Russia located within the NSR there are large gas reserves that are being planned for LNG exports.

In general, ships below 1A ice class will not be allowed to trade on NSR. This affords an advantage to those owners with ice class tonnage. Furthermore, owners/operators with experience of operating in ice conditions will have an edge over the traditional tramp operators who make occasional forays into the region during the winter months.

---

The LNG Fleet

LNG carriers are specialist vessels designed to transport LNG between liquefaction facilities and import terminals. They are double-hulled vessels with a sophisticated containment system that holds and insulates LNG to maintain it in liquid form. Any LNG that evaporates during the voyage and converts to natural gas (normally referred to as boil-off) can be used as fuel to help propel the ship.

Among the existing fleet there are several different types of containment systems used on LNG carriers, but the two most popular systems are:

·

The Moss Rosenberg spherical system, which was designed in the 1970s and is used by a large portion of the existing LNG fleet. In this system, multiple self-supporting, spherical tanks are built independent of the carrier and arranged inside its hull.

·

The Gaz Transport membrane system, which is built inside the carrier and consists of insulation between thin primary and secondary barriers. The membrane is designed to accommodate thermal expansion and contraction without overstressing the membrane.

However, it is the case that most new vessels are being built with membrane systems such as the Gaz Transport system. This trend is primarily a result of lower Suez Canal fees and related costs associated with passage through the canal (which is required for many long-haul trade routes) for carriers with membrane systems. In addition, membrane system ships tend to operate more efficiently since the spheres on the Moss Rosenberg systems create more wind resistance. Generally, membrane ships achieve better speed consumption due to improved hull utilization, reduced cool down time and better terminal capacity.

The cargo capacity of an LNG carrier is measured in cubic meters (cbm). As of February 2015, the worldwide fleet totaled 397 ships with a combined capacity of 60.1 million cbm. The breakdown of the fleet by vessel size is shown below.

The LNG Fleet by Vessel Size: February 2015

Source: Drewry

---

Within the current fleet there are only 9 vessels with ice class 1A certification, making these ships a niche part of the market.

The age profile of the existing fleet as of February 2015 is shown below. The average age of all LNG carriers in service is 11.0 years, with fleet age generally increasing as ship size decreases.

LNG Fleet Age Profile: February 2015

Source: Drewry

Due to high quality construction and in most cases high quality maintenance, LNG carriers tend to have longer trading lives than oil tankers; it is not unusual to see ships older than 35 years still in service. However, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that older ships may find it harder to find employment in the future. Ships built before 1990 will likely become candidates for replacement in the not too distant future.

LNG Shipping Arrangements

LNG carriers are usually chartered for a fixed period of time with the charter rate payable to the owner on a monthly basis. Shipping arrangements are normally based on charters of five years or more because:

·

LNG projects are expensive and typically involve an integrated chain of dedicated facilities. Accordingly, the overall success of an LNG project depends heavily on long-term planning and coordination of project activities, including marine transportation.

·

LNG carriers are expensive to build, and the cash-flow from long-term fixed-rate charters supports vessel financing.

---

Most end users of LNG are utility companies, power stations or petrochemical producers that depend on reliable and uninterrupted delivery of LNG. Although most shipping requirements for new LNG projects continue to be provided on a long-term basis, spot voyages (typically consisting of a single voyage) and time charters of four years or less have become a feature of the market in recent years. However, it should be noted that the LNG spot market is different from the tanker spot market. In the tanker market, the term "spot trade" refers to a single voyage, which is arranged at a short notice. In the LNG market, it relates to the transport of one or more cargoes, sometimes within a specified time period between one and six months, with a set-up time of possibly several months.

Newbuilding Prices

Similar to other types of vessels, newbuilding prices for LNG carriers rose steeply in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and then began to drift downwards in the mid-1990s and fall sharply in the late 1990s. At the beginning of 1992, the price of a 125,000 cbm ship from a Far East yard was reported to be approximately $270 million to $290 million, compared with a low of $120 million at the end of 1986. However, by early 2000 new orders were being struck at a new low of around $150 million.

After the lows of early 2000, prices crept above $165 million in the first half of 2001, but fell back to the $160 million to $165 million range in the second half of the year. Further pressure on newbuilding prices in general pushed typical prices closer to $160 million in 2002, and by 2003 prices fell to just above $150 million. However, a host of factors, including constrained shipbuilding capacity, currency movements and high steel prices led to an increase in prices in 2004 to around $180 million. Prices rose above $200 million in 2005 and renewed pressure on shipbuilding prices pushed prices close to $220 million in 2006.

---

LNG Carrier Newbuilding Prices: 2003-2015 ⁽¹⁾

(End Period - U.S.$ Million)

(1)    February 2015

Source: Drewry

Prices for larger sized LNG carriers of 210-220,000 cbm were around $215 million when first ordered in late 2004 and increased to $235 million in the summer of 2005.

Newbuilding prices reached an all-time high mark of $250 million around mid-2008, influenced by a number of factors, including the declining dollar exchange rate, easy availability of finance, high steel prices and tight shipbuilding capacity. However, newbuilding prices then fell in the wake of little new ordering in the period 2008-2011.  A small rise occurred in 2012, but since then prices have been quite flat. In February 2015 the newbuilding price for a 150-160,000 cbm ship was assessed at just over US$200 million.

LNG Safety

LNG shipping is generally safe relative to other forms of commercial marine transportation. In the past forty years, there have been no significant accidents or cargo spillages involving an LNG carrier, even though over 40,000 plus LNG voyages have been made during that time.

LNG is non-toxic and non-explosive in its liquid state. It only becomes explosive or inflammable when heated and vaporized, and then only when in a confined space within a narrow range of concentrations in the air (5% to 15%). The risks and hazards from an LNG spill vary depending on the size of the spill, environmental conditions and the site at which the spill occurs.

---

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. The process of obtaining new time charters generally involves intensive screening and competitive bidding, and often extends for several months. LNG carrier time charters are generally awarded based upon a variety of factors relating to the vessel operator, including but not limited to price, customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation and size, age and condition of the vessel. We believe that the LNG shipping industry is characterized by the significant time required to develop the operating expertise and professional reputation necessary to obtain and retain charterers.

We expect substantial competition for providing marine transportation services for potential LNG projects from a number of experienced companies, including state-sponsored entities and major energy companies. Many of these competitors have significantly greater financial resources and larger and more versatile fleets than we do. We anticipate that an increasing number of marine transportation companies, including many with strong reputations and extensive resources and experience, will enter the LNG transportation market. This increased competition may cause greater price competition for time charters.

Seasonality

Historically, LNG trade, and therefore charter rates, increased in the winter months and eased in the summer months as demand for LNG in the Northern Hemisphere rose in colder weather and fell in warmer weather.  The tanker industry in general has become less dependent on the seasonal transport of LNG than a decade ago as new uses for LNG have developed, spreading consumption more evenly over the year.  There is a higher seasonal demand during the summer months due to energy requirements for air conditioning in some markets and a pronounced higher seasonal demand during the winter months for heating in other markets. However, our vessels primarily operate under multi-year charters and are not subject to the effect of seasonal variations in demand.

Environmental and Other Regulations

General

Governmental and international agencies extensively regulate the carriage, handling, storage and regasification of LNG. 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 port authorities, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent, classification societies, flag state, or the administration of the country of registry, charterers, terminal operators and LNG producers.

International Maritime Regulations of LNG Vessels

The IMO is the United Nations' agency that provides international regulations governing shipping and international maritime trade, including the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or the "MARPOL Convention." 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. The requirements contained in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (the ISM Code) promulgated by the IMO, govern our 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 are compliant with the requirement to hold a Document of Compliance under the ISM Code.

Vessels that transport gas, including LNG carriers 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 LNG and certain other 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 of Bulk. Each of our vessels is in compliance with the IGC Code and each of our newbuilding/conversion contracts requires that the vessel receive certification that it is in compliance with applicable regulations before it is delivered. 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.

---

In 1996, the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damages in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS) was adopted and subsequently amended by the 2010 Protocol.  The HNS Convention introduces strict liability for the shipowner and covers pollution damage as well as the risks of fire and explosion, including loss of life or personal injury and damage to property. HNS includes, among other things, liquefied natural gas.  However, the HNS Convention lacked the ratifications required to come into force.  In April 2010, a consensus at the Diplomatic Conference convened by the IMO adopted the 2010 Protocol.  Under the 2010 Protocol, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, compensation would first be sought from the shipowner.  The 2010 Protocol has not yet entered into effect.  It will enter into force eighteen months after the date on which certain consent and administrative requirements are satisfied.  While a majority of the necessary number of states has indicated their consent to be bound by the 2010 Protocol, the required minimum has not been met.

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 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (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. May 2012 SOLAS amendments entered into force as of January 1, 2014. Additionally, May 2013 SOLAS amendments, pertaining to emergency drills, entered into force in January 2015.

In the wake of increased worldwide security concerns, the IMO amended SOLAS and added the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS) as a new chapter to that convention. The objective of the ISPS, 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. Our Manager 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.

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.

---

The MARPOL Convention establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged form. MARPOL is broken into six Annexes, each of which establishes environmental standards relating to different sources of pollution: Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried, in bulk, in liquid or packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, adopted by the IMO in September of 1997, relates to air emissions.

The IMO amended Annex I to MARPOL, including a new regulation relating to oil fuel tank protection, and the new regulation applies to various ships delivered on or after August 1, 2010. It 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.

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

In September 1997, the IMO adopted MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI "Regulations for the prevention of Air Pollution" (or Annex VI) to MARPOL to address air pollution from ships. Annex VI came into force on May 19, 2005. It applies to all ships, fixed and floating drilling rigs and other floating platforms and sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluoro carbons. Annex VI also includes a global cap on sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas 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 Prevention Certificate (or an IAPP Certificate). Annex VI has been ratified by some but not all IMO member states. Annex VI came into force in the United States on January 8, 2009, and the U.S. Coast Guard issues IAPP Certificates. All the vessels in our Fleet have been issued with IAPP Certificates.

---

On July 1, 2010 amendments to Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention that require progressively stricter limitations on sulfur emissions from ships proposed by the United States, Norway and other IMO member states took effect. Beginning on January 1, 2012, fuel used to power ships may contain no more than 3.5% sulfur. This cap will then decrease progressively until it reaches 0.5% by January 1, 2020. However, in Emission Control Areas (or ECAs), limitations on sulfur emissions require that fuels contain no more than 1% sulfur and was further reduced to 0.1% as of January 1, 2015. For example, in August 2012, the North American ECA became enforceable. The Baltic Sea and the North Sea have also been designated ECAs. The North American ECA includes areas subject to the exclusive sovereignty of the United States and Canada. Consequently, in August 2012, when the North American ECA became effective, the sulfur limit in marine fuel was capped at 1%, which is the capped amount for all other ECA areas since July 1, 2010. The amendments also establish new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. Further, the European directive 2005/33/EC, which became effective 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. Our vessels have achieved compliance, where necessary, by being arranged to burn gas only in their boilers when alongside. Marine Gas Oil and Low Sulfur Marine Gas Oil, or MGO and LSMGO, respectively, have been purchased as the only fuel for the Diesel Generators.

Additionally, as discussed above, more stringent emission standards could apply in coastal areas designated as ECAs, such as the United States and Canadian coastal areas designated by the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), as discussed in "—U.S. Clean Air Act" below. U.S. air emissions standards are now equivalent to these amended Annex VI requirements, and once these amendments become effective, we may incur costs to comply with these revised standards. 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 has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for oil pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatory to such conventions. For example, 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 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 will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. The Convention has not yet entered into force because a sufficient number of states have failed to adopt it, but it is close.

---

The IMO has passed a resolution encouraging the ratification of the Convention and calling upon those countries that have already ratified to encourage the installation of ballast water management systems on new ships.  Many of the implementation dates originally written in the BWM Convention have already passed, so that once the BWM Convention enters into force, the period for installation of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements would be extremely short, with several thousand ships a year needing to install ballast water management systems (BWMS).  For this reason, on December 4, 2013, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution revising the application dates of BWM Convention so that they are triggered by the entry into force date and not the dates originally in the BWM Convention.  This in effect makes all vessels constructed before the entry into force date 'existing' vessels, and allows for the installation of a BWMS on such vessels at the first renewal survey following entry into force.

As referenced below, the U.S. Coast Guard issued new ballast water management rules on March 23, 2012. Under the requirements of the convention for units with ballast water capacity more than 5000 cubic meters that were constructed in 2011 or before, ballast water management exchange or treatment will be accepted until 2016. From 2016 (or not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey after 2016), only ballast water treatment will be accepted by the Convention.

Bunkers 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 Convention provides a liability, compensation and compulsory insurance system for the victims of oil pollution damage caused by spills of bunker oil. The 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 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 enable signatory states to issue certificates. 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 cover 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 antifouling systems are altered or replaced. We have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti-Fouling Convention and do not believe that maintaining such certificates will have an adverse financial impact on the operation of our vessels.

United States Environmental Regulation of LNG 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 and CERCLA

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (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. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) applies to the discharge of hazardous substances whether on land or at sea. While OPA 90 and CERCLA would not apply to the discharge of LNG, they 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:

---

·

natural resource damages and related assessment costs;

·

real and personal property damages;

·

net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, profits or earnings capacity;

·

net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards; and

·

loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

Effective July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17.088 million for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation). 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.

CERCLA, which also applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages for releases of "hazardous substances." Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for each release from vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue, and $300 per gross ton or $5 million for each release from vessels carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue. As with OPA 90, these limits of liability do not apply 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 or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the substance removal activities. OPA 90 and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with OPA 90, CERCLA 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/CERCLA. 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/CERCLA. Each of our shipowning 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, 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 certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard for each of our vessels that is required to have one.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA.  For example, effective on August 15, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practice. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes.

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 CERCLA. In additional, many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent that U.S. federal law.

---

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the discharge of ballast water, bilge water, and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels within U.S. waters. Under the new rules, which took effect February 6, 2009, commercial vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels), or Regulated Vessels, are required 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. For each discharge type, among other things, the VGP establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent, including best management practices (or BMPs) designed to decrease the amount of constituents entering the waste stream. Unlike land-based discharges, which are deemed acceptable by meeting certain EPA-imposed numerical effluent limits, each of the 26 VGP discharge limits is deemed to be met when a Regulated Vessel carries out the BMPs pertinent to that specific discharge stream. 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. Several U.S. states have added specific requirements to the VGP and, in some cases, may require vessels to install ballast water treatment technology to meet biological performance standards. For a new vessel delivered to an owner or operator after September 19, 2009 to be covered by the VGP, the owner must submit a Notice of Intent, or NOI, at least 30 days before the vessel operates in United States waters. On March 28, 2013 the EPA re-issued the VGP for another five years, which took effect December 19, 2013. The 2013 VGP contains ballast water discharge standards for most vessels that now contain numeric limits. EPA is also planning to finalize the VGP for small vessels- the VGP but the final rule has not yet been issued.

National Aquatic Invasive Species Act

The National Invasive Species Act (or NISA) was enacted in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. ports through ballast water taken on by ships in foreign ports. NISA established a ballast water management program for ships entering U.S. waters, which require the installation of equipment to treat ballast water before it is discharged in U.S. waters or, in the alternative, the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures.  Vessels not complying with these regulations are restricted from entering U.S. waters.  The U.S. Coast Guard must approve any technology before it is placed on a vessel but has not yet approved the technology for vessels to meet these standards.  Under NISA, mid-ocean ballast water exchange is voluntary, except for ships heading to the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay, or vessels engaged in the foreign export of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. However, NISA's exporting and record-keeping requirements are mandatory for vessels bound for any port in the United States. If the mid-ocean ballast exchange is made mandatory throughout the United States, or if water treatment requirements or options are instituted, the costs of compliance could increase for ocean carriers.

---

The Coast Guard's revised regulations on ballast water management by establishing standards are consistent with those adopted by the IMO in 2004. The final rule requires that ballast water discharge have no more than 10 living organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 micrometers in size. For organisms larger than 50 micrometers, the discharge can have 10 living organisms per cubic meter of discharge. New ships constructed on or after December 1, 2012 must comply with these standards and some existing ships must comply with these standards and some existing ships must comply by their first dry dock after January 1, 2014. The U.S. Coast Guard will review the practicability of implementing a more stringent ballast water discharge standard and publish the results no later than January 1, 2016. Compliance with these regulations will require us to incur additional costs and other measures that may be significant.

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. The emission standards apply in two stages: near-term standards for newly-built engines will apply from 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80% reduction in nitrogen dioxides (or NOx) will apply from 2016. The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in each state.  Although state-specific, SIPs may include regulations concerning emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment.  Compliance with these standards may cause us to incur costs to install control equipment on our vessels in the future.

Other 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.

---

The European Union has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/33/EC (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 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

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from ships involved in international transport are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the United States and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, in December 2011, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change adopted the Durban Platform which calls for a process to develop binding emissions limitations on both developed and developing countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change applicable to all Parties. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers are expected to endorse regulations that would require the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels in 2015. For 2020, the EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member stated by 20% of 1990 levels. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol's second period, from 2013 to 2020.

---

As of January 1, 2013, all ships (including rigs and drillships) must comply with mandatory requirements adopted by MEPC in July 2011 relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships add a new Chapter 4 to Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency requiring the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Other amendments to Annex VI add new definitions and requirements for survey and certification, including the format for the International Energy Efficiency Certificate. The regulations apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above. 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 implementation of the EEDI and SEEMP standards could cause us to incur additional compliance costs. The IMO is also planning to implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at an upcoming MEPC session. It is impossible to predict the likelihood that such a standard might be adopted or its potential impact on our operations at this time.

In the United States, the EPA has issued a final finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety, and has promulgated regulations that regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. In 2009 and 2010, EPA adopted greenhouse reporting requirements for various onshore facilities, and also adopted a rule potentially imposing control technology requirements on certain stationary sources subject to the federal Clean Air Act. The EPA may decide in the future to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships and has already been petitioned by the California Attorney General to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going 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 in the U.S. Congress. Any passage of 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 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures, including capital expenditures to upgrade our vessels, that we cannot predict with certainty at this time. In addition, even without such regulation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change results in sea level changes or more intense weather events.

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 (or ISSC) from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state.

---

Among the various requirements are:

·

on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship's identity, position, course, speed and navigational status;

·

on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alerts the authorities on shore;

·

the development of vessel security plans;

·

ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel's hull;

·

a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history including, the name of the ship and of the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; 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 obtaining U.S. Coast Guard-approved MTSA vessel security plans provided such vessels have on board an ISSC that attests to the vessel's compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code.

Our Manager has 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 LNG vessels may also become subject to 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), including liquefied gases. 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). If the damage is caused by packaged HNS or by both bulk and packaged HNS, the maximum liability is 115 million SDR. Once the limit is reached, compensation will be paid from the HNS Fund up to a maximum of 250 million SDR. 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

Our Manager carries out ship audits and inspections of the ships on a regular basis; both at sea and while the vessels are in port. 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. Based in part on these evaluations, our Manager has created and implemented a program of continual maintenance for our vessels and their systems.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every large, commercial seagoing vessel must be "classed" by a classification society. A classification society certifies that a vessel is "in class," signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and 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.

For maintenance of the class certificate, regular and special surveys of hull, machinery, including the electrical plant and any special equipment classed, are required to be performed by the classification society, to ensure continuing compliance. Vessels are dry-docked at least once during a five-year class cycle for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs related to inspections. Vessels under five years of age can waive dry docking in order to increase available days and decrease capital expenditures, provided the vessel is inspected underwater. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a "recommendation" which must be rectified by the shipowner within prescribed time limits. The classification society also undertakes on request of the flag state other surveys and checks that are required by the regulations and requirements of that flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as "in class" by a classification society, which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (the IACS). In 2012, the IACS issued draft harmonized Common Structure Rules that align with IMO goal standards, and are expected to be adopted in 2013. All of the vessels in our Fleet are certified by Lloyds Register, have been awarded ISM certification and are currently "in class."

Our Manager carries out inspections of the ships on a regular basis; both at sea and while the vessels are in port. 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. Based in part on these evaluations we create and implement a program of continual maintenance and improvement for our vessels and their systems.

---

Safety, Management of Ship Operations and Administration

Safety is our top operational priority. Our vessels are operated in a manner intended to protect the safety and health of the crew, the general public and the environment. We actively manage the risks inherent in our business and are committed to preventing incidents that threaten safety, such as groundings, fires and collisions. We are also committed to reducing emissions and waste generation. We have established key performance indicators to facilitate regular monitoring of our operational performance. We set targets on an annual basis to drive continuous improvement, and we review performance indicators monthly to determine if remedial action is necessary to reach our targets. Our Manager's shore staff performs a full range of technical, commercial and business development services for us. This staff also provides administrative support to our operations in finance, accounting and human resources.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

The operation of any vessel, including LNG carriers, has inherent risks. These risks include mechanical failure, personal injury, collision, property loss, vessel or cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries or hostilities. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including explosion, spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. We believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate to protect us against the accident related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that we maintain appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage consistent with standard industry practice. However, 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.

We have obtained hull and machinery insurance on all our vessels against marine and war risks, which include the risks of damage to our vessels, salvage or towing costs, and also insure against actual or constructive total loss of any of our vessels. However, our insurance policies contain deductible amounts for which we will be responsible. We have also arranged additional total loss coverage for each vessel. This coverage, which is called hull interest and freight interest coverage, provides us additional coverage in the event of the total loss of a vessel. The agreed deductible on each vessel averages $500,000.

We have also obtained loss of hire insurance to protect us against loss of income in the event one of our vessels cannot be employed due to damage that is covered under the terms of our hull and machinery insurance. Under our loss of hire policies, our insurer will pay us the daily rate agreed in respect of each vessel for each day, in excess of a certain number of deductible days, for the time that the vessel is out of service as a result of damage, for a maximum of 120 days. The number of deductible days varies from 14 days to 120 days, depending on the type of damage, machinery or hull damage. The number of deductible days for the vessels in our Fleet is 14 days per vessel.

---

Protection and indemnity insurance, which covers our third party legal liabilities in connection with our shipping activities, is provided by a mutual protection and indemnity association, or P&I club. This includes third party liability and other expenses related to the injury or death of crew members, passengers and other third party persons, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels or from contact with jetties or wharves and other damage to other third party property, including pollution arising from oil or other substances, and other related costs, including wreck removal. Subject to the capping discussed below, our coverage, except for pollution, is unlimited. Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1 billion per vessel per incident. The thirteen P&I clubs that comprise the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs insure approximately 90% of the world's commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association's liabilities. Each P&I club has capped its exposure in this pooling agreement so that the maximum claim covered by the pool and its reinsurance would be approximately $5.45 billion per accident or occurrence. We are a member of the North of England P&I Club. As a member of these P&I clubs, we are subject to a call for additional premiums based on the clubs' claims record, as well as the claims record of all other members of the P&I clubs comprising the International Group. However, our P&I clubs have reinsured the risk of additional premium calls to limit our additional exposure. This reinsurance is subject to a cap, and there is the risk that the full amount of the additional call would not be covered by this reinsurance.

C.	ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

We were formed on May 29, 2013 as a Marshall Islands limited partnership. We own (i) a 100% limited partner interest in Dynagas Operating LP, which owns a 100% interest in our Fleet through intermediate holding companies and (ii) the non-economic general partner interest in Dynagas Operating LP through our 100% ownership of its general partner, Dynagas Operating GP LLC.

Please see Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report for a list of our current subsidiaries.

D.	PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

For a description of our Fleet, please see "Item 4. Information on the Partnership—B. Business Overview—Our Fleet."

ITEM 4A.

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

---

ITEM 5.

OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

The following management's discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial and Operating Data" and the accompanying audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in "Item 18. Financial Statements" of this Annual Report. Amounts relating to percentage variations in period—on—period comparisons shown in this section are derived from the actual numbers in our books and records. The following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our future plans, estimates, beliefs and expected performance. The forward-looking statements are dependent upon events, risks and uncertainties that may be outside our control. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. See "Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors" and the section entitled "Forward-Looking Statements" at the beginning of this Annual Report. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed may not occur.

A.	RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

We are a growth-oriented limited partnership focused on owning and operating LNG carriers.  Our vessels are employed on multi-year time charters, which we define as charters of two years or more, with international energy companies such as BG Group, Gazprom and Statoil, providing us with the benefits of stable cash flows and high utilization rates.  We intend to leverage the reputation, expertise, and relationships of our Sponsor and Dynagas Ltd., our Manager, in maintaining cost-efficient operations and providing reliable seaborne transportation services to our charterers. In addition, we intend to make further vessel acquisitions from our Sponsor and from third parties. There is no guarantee that we will grow the size of our Fleet or the per unit distributions that we intend to pay or that we will be able to make further vessel acquisitions from our Sponsor or third parties.

---

---

Our Charters

---

Although these expected revenues are based on contracted charter rates, any contract is subject to various risks, including performance by the counterparties or an early termination of the contract pursuant to its terms. If the charterers are unable to make charter payments to us, if we agree to renegotiate charter terms at the request of a charterer or if contracts are prematurely terminated for any reason, our results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. Historically, we have had no defaults by charterers. Further, these expected revenues may also be affected with unscheduled off-hire days for reasons such as unscheduled repairs, including off-hires for unscheduled vessel upgrades, drydockings or special or intermediate surveys. For these reasons, the contracted charter revenue information presented is an estimate and should not be relied upon as being necessarily indicative of future results. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on this information. Neither our independent auditors, nor any other independent accountants, have compiled, examined or performed any procedures with respect to the information presented in the table, nor have they expressed any opinion or any other form of assurance on such information or its achievability, and assume no responsibility for, and disclaim any association with, the information in the table.

---

---

·

Our ability to obtain acceptable debt financing to fund our capital commitments;

---

Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

•

vessel sale prices and values of which we are aware through both formal and informal communications with ship-owners, shipbrokers, industry analysts and various other shipping industry participants and observers.

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Time charter revenues		$	85,679			$	77,498			$	8,181				10.6	%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013					2012				Change			% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Commissions			618				819				(201	)			(24.5	%)
Bunkers			—				1,361				(1,361	)			(100	%)
Port Expenses			57				307				(250	)			(81.4	%)
Voyage Expenses		$	675			$	2,487			$	(1,812	)			(72.9	%)

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Voyage Expenses—related party (commissions)		$	1,011			$	981			$	30				3.1	%

		Year Ended December 31,
		2013				2012				Change				% Change
		(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Crew wages and related costs			8,618				9,755				(1,137	)			(11.7	%)
Insurance			1,554				1,488				66				4.4	%
Spares and consumable stores			1,086				2,561				(1,475	)			(57.6	%)
Repairs and maintenance			323				1,340				(1,017	)			(75.9	%)
Tonnage taxes			96				18				78				433.3	%
Other operating expenses			232				560				(328	)			(58.6	%)
Total		$	11,909			$	15,722			$	(3,813	)			(24.3	%)

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
General and administrative costs		$	387			$	278			$	109				39.2	%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Management fees		$	2,737			$	2,638			$	99				3.8	%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Depreciation		$	13,579			$	13,616			$	(37	)			(0.3	)%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Drydocking and Special Survey Costs		$	—			$	2,109			$	(2,109	)			100	%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013					2012				Change			% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Interest on long-term debt			8,248				8,551				(303	)			(3.5	)%
Amortization and write-off of financing fees			1,050				590				460				78.0	%
Commitment fees			327				372				(45	)			(12.1	)%
Other			107				63				44				69.8	%
Total		$	9,732			$	9,576			$	156				1.6	%

	Year Ended December 31,
	2013				2012				Change				% Change
	(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Realized and Unrealized Loss on Derivative Financial Instruments		$	—			$	196			$	(196	)			(100	)%

	•		maintain total consolidated liabilities of less than 65% of the total consolidated market value of our adjusted total assets;
	•		maintain an interest coverage ratio of at least 3.0 times;

	•		maintain minimum liquidity equal to at least $24.0 million;
	•		employ at least three vessels in our Fleet on charters with a minimum initial term of at least three years at above breakeven costs;
	•		maintain an asset coverage ratio of 130%, meaning that the collateral vessels' market values shall exceed the total outstanding indebtedness under this facility by 130% at all times; and
	•		maintain a hull and machinery and war risks insurance equal to the greater of (i) 120% of the outstanding borrowings under this facility and (ii) the market value of the collateral vessels.

		Year Ended December 31,
		2014				2013
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	76,443			$	44,204
Net cash used in investing activities			(404,530	)			—
Net cash provided by/ (used in) financing activities			334,359				(38,527	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year			5,677				—
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year		$	11,949			$	5,677

		Payments due by period
Obligations		Total				Less than 1 year				1-3 years				3-5 years				More than 5 years
		(in thousands of Dollars)
Long Term Debt		$	575,000			$	20,000			$	40,000			$	290,000			$	225,000
Interest on long term debt (1)			127,916				25,665				49,458				44,298				8,495
Management Fees & commissions payable to the Manager (2)			39,969				6,660				13,421				11,752				8,136
Executive Services fee (3)			2,534				653				1,306				575				—
Administrative Services fee (4)			600				120				240				240				—
Total		$	746,019			$	53,098			$	104,425			$	346,865			$	241,631

(1)	Our long-term bank debt outstanding as of December 31, 2014 bears variable interest at a margin over LIBOR. The calculation of interest payments has been made assuming interest rates based on the 3-month period LIBOR, the LIBOR specific to our facility as of December 31, 2014 and our applicable margin rate.
(2)	Under the terms of the Management Agreements, we currently pay a management fee of $2,652 per day which is subject to an annual increase of 3% and further annual increases to reflect material unforeseen costs increases of providing the management services, by an amount to be agreed between us and our Manager, which amount will be reviewed and approved by our conflicts committee. The Management Agreements also provide for commissions of 1.25% of charter-hire revenues arranged by the Manager. The agreements will terminate automatically after a change of control of the applicable shipping subsidiary and/or of the owner's ultimate parent, in which case an amount equal to fees of at the least 36 months and not more than 60 months, will become payable to the Manager.
(3)	On March 21, 2014, we entered into the Executive Services Agreement with our Manager, with retroactive effect to the date of the closing of our IPO, pursuant to which our Manager provides us with the services of our executive officers, who report directly to our Board of Directors. Under the Executive Services Agreement, our Manager is entitled to an executive services fee of €538,000 per annum, for the initial five year term, payable in equal monthly installments. The agreement has an initial term of five years and will automatically be renewed for successive five year terms unless terminated earlier. The calculation of the contractual services fee set forth in the table above assumes an exchange rate of €1.000 to $1.2141, the EURO/USD exchange rate as of December 31, 2014 and does not include any incentive compensation which our Board of Directors may agree to pay.
(4)	On December 30, 2014 and effective as of the IPO closing date, we entered into the Administrative Services Agreement with our Manager, pursuant to which the Partnership is provided with certain financial, accounting, reporting, secretarial and information technology services, for a monthly fee of $10,000, plus expenses, payable in quarterly installments. The Agreement can be terminated upon 120 days' notice granted either by the Partnership's Board or by the Manager as per the provisions of the agreement.

Name	Age	Position
George Prokopiou	68	Appointed Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Tony Lauritzen	38	Chief Executive Officer and Appointed Director
Michael Gregos	43	Chief Financial Officer
Levon Dedegian	63	Class III Director
Alexios Rodopoulos	67	Class II Director
Evangelos Vlahoulis	68	Class I Director

		Common Units Beneficially Owned								Subordinated Units Beneficially Owned								Percentage of Total Common and Subordinated Units
Name of Beneficial Owner		Number				Percent				Number				Percent				Beneficially Owned
Dynagas Holding Ltd.(1)			610,000				3.0	%			14,985,000				100	%			43.9	%
Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors LP (2)			4,100,733				20.0	%			—				—				11.6	%
Goldman Sachs Asset Management LP (3)			3,134,183				15.3	%			—				—				8.8	%
Zimmer Partners, LP			1,177,668				5.7	%			—				—				3.3	%

Marshall Islands law fiduciary duty standards	Fiduciary duties are generally considered to include an obligation to act in good faith and with due care and loyalty. The duty of care, in the absence of a provision in a Partnership Agreement providing otherwise, would generally require a General Partner and the directors of a Marshall Islands limited partnership to act for the partnership in the same manner as a prudent person would act on his own behalf. The duty of loyalty, in the absence of a provision in a Partnership Agreement providing otherwise, would generally prohibit a General Partner or the directors of a Marshall Islands limited partnership from taking any action or engaging in any transaction where a conflict of interest is present.
Partnership Agreement modified standards	Our Partnership Agreement contains provisions that waive or consent to conduct by our General Partner and its affiliates and our directors that might otherwise raise issues as to compliance with fiduciary duties under the laws of the Marshall Islands. For example, our Partnership Agreement provides that when our General Partner is acting in its capacity as our General Partner, as opposed to in its individual capacity, it must act in "good faith" and will not be subject to any other standard under the laws of the Marshall Islands. In addition, when our General Partner is acting in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our General Partner, it may act without any fiduciary obligation to us or the unitholders whatsoever. These standards reduce the obligations to which our General Partner and our Board of Directors would otherwise be held. Our Partnership Agreement generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not involving a vote of unitholders and that are not approved by our conflicts committee of our Board of Directors must be:
	·	on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties; or
	·	"fair and reasonable" to us, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved (including other transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to us).

	If our Board of Directors does not seek approval from the conflicts committee, and our Board of Directors determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in the bullet points above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, our Board of Directors acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption. These standards reduce the obligations to which our Board of Directors would otherwise be held.
	In addition to the other more specific provisions limiting the obligations of our General Partner and our directors, our Partnership Agreement further provides that our General Partner and our officers and directors, will not be liable for monetary damages to us or our limited partners for errors of judgment or for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our General Partner or our officers or directors engaged in actual fraud or willful misconduct.
Rights and remedies of unitholders	The provisions of the Partnership Act resemble the provisions of the limited partnership act of Delaware. For example, like Delaware, the Partnership Act favors the principles of freedom of contract and enforceability of Partnership Agreements and allows the Partnership Agreement to contain terms governing the rights of the unitholders. The rights of our unitholders, including voting and approval rights and our ability to issue additional units, are governed by the terms of our Partnership Agreement.
	As to remedies of unitholders, the Partnership Act permits a limited partner to institute legal action on behalf of the partnership to recover damages from a third party where a General Partner or a Board of Directors has refused to institute the action or where an effort to cause a General Partner or a Board of Directors to do so is not likely to succeed. These actions include actions against a General Partner for breach of its fiduciary duties or of the Partnership Agreement.

	Marginal Percentage Interest in Distributions
	Total Quarterly Distribution Target Amount				Unitholders				General Partner				Holders of IDRs
Minimum Quarterly Distribution			$0.365				99.9	%			0.1	%			0.0	%
First Target Distribution	up to $0.420						99.9	%			0.1	%			0.0	%
Second Target Distribution	above $0.420 up to $0.456						85.0	%			0.1	%			14.9	%
Third Target Distribution	Above $0.456 up to $0.548						75.0	%			0.1	%			24.9	%
Thereafter	above $0.548						50.0	%			0.1	%			49.9	%

For the Year Ended		High (US$)				Low (US$)
December 31, 2013*			23.79				16.75
December 2014			25.50				13.66
* For the period beginning November 13, 2013

For the Quarter Ended:		High (US$)			Low (US$)
December 31, 2013*			23.79				16.75
March 31, 2014			22.77				20.71
June 30, 2014			25.50				20.85
September 30, 2014			25.13				22.33
December 31, 2014			23.43				13.66
* For the period beginning November 13, 2013
Most Recent Six Months:		High (US$)			Low (US$)
September 2014			24.50				22.71
October 2014			23.43				17.34
November 2014			22.04				17.70
December 2014			19.50				13.66
January 2015			18.58				14.50
February 2015			20.95				20.10
March 2015*			20.5				19.5

Charterer		2014				2013
BG Group			50	%			61	%
Gazprom			36	%			39	%
Statoil			14	%			—	%
Total			100	%			100	%

●	Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Partnership;

●

Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of Partnership's management and directors; and

●	Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

	Exhibit Number		Description
	1.1		Certificate of Limited Partnership of Dynagas LNG Partners LP (1)
	1.2		Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Dynagas LNG Partners LP (2)
	1.3		Certificate of Formation of Dynagas GP LLC (1)
	1.4		Limited Liability Company Agreement of Dynagas GP LLC (1)
	1.5		Certificate of Limited Partnership of Dynagas Operating LP (1)
	1.6		Limited Partnership Agreement of Dynagas Operating LP (1)
	1.7		Certificate of Formation of Dynagas Operating GP LLC (1)
	1.8		Limited Liability Company Agreement of Dynagas GP LLC (1)
	4.1		Vessel Management Agreement between Lance Shipping S.A., as vessel owner, and Dynagas Ltd., as manager, dated December 21, 2012, as amended by Addendum No. 1 dated October 7, 2013 (1)
	4.2		Vessel Management Agreement between Pegasus Shipping S.A., as vessel owner, and Dynagas Ltd., as manager, dated December 21, 2012, as amended by Addendum No. 1 dated October 7, 2013 (1)
	4.3		Vessel Management Agreement between Seacrown Maritime Ltd., as vessel owner, and Dynagas Ltd., as manager, dated December 21, 2012, as amended by Addendum No. 1 dated October 7, 2013 (1)
	4.4		Omnibus Agreement, dated November 18, 2013 (2)
	4.5		Contribution Agreement (1)
	4.6		$30 Million Revolving Credit Facility with Dynagas Holding Ltd. (2)
	4.7		2013 Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility (2)
	4.8	†	Charter Agreement by and between Lance Shipping S.A. and Gazprom Global LNG Limited, a subsidiary of Gazprom, dated August 2, 2011, as amended (1)
	4.9	†	Charter Agreement by and between Seacrown Maritime Ltd. and Methane Services Ltd., a subsidiary of BG Group, dated October 2, 2010, as amended (1)
	4.10	†	Charter Agreement by and between Pegasus Shipholding S.A. and Methane Services Ltd., a subsidiary of BG Group, dated May 18, 2011, as amended (1)
	4.11		Executive Services Agreement (2)
	4.12		Administrative Services Agreement
	4.13		Share Purchase Agreement dated April 17, 2014
	4.14		Share Purchase Agreement dated September 22, 2014
	4.15		$340 Million Senior Secured Credit Facility

	4.16		Vessel Management Agreement between Fareastern Shipping Limited, as vessel owner, and Dynagas Ltd., as manager, dated December 16, 2013
	4.17		Vessel Management Agreement between Navajo Marine Limited, as vessel owner, and Dynagas Ltd., as manager, dated December 17, 2013
	4.18		Base Indenture, dated as of September 15, 2014, by and among the Partnership and Dynagas Finance Inc., as Issuers, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, relating to 6.25% Senior Notes Due 2019.
	4.19		First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 15, 2014, by an among by and among the Partnership and Dynagas Finance Inc., as Issuers, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, relating to 6.25% Senior Notes Due 2019.
	8.1		Subsidiaries of Dynagas LNG Partners LP
	12.1		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Dynagas LNG Partners LP Principal Executive Officer
	12.2		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Dynagas LNG Partners LP Principal Financial and Accounting Officer.
	13.1		Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of the Principal Executive Officer
	13.2		Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
	15.1		Consent of Independent Registered Accounting Firm
	101.INS		XBRL Instance Document **
	101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema **
	101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase **
	101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase **
	101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase **
	101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase **

†	Certain portions have been omitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request.  Omitted information has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

(1)	Incorporated by reference to the Partnership's Registration Statement on Form F-1, which was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2013 (Registration No. 333-191653)
(2)	Incorporated by reference to the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 20-F, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2014

**

Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, these interactive data files are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and otherwise are not subject to liability under such sections.

		DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP
		By:	/s/ Michael Gregos
			Name:	Michael Gregos
			Title:	Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Date:	March 10, 2015