Investor Presentation – Pareto Conference September 2016 1 Forward Looking Statements Matters discussed in this presentation may constitute forward-looking statements under U.S. federal securities laws, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s current views with respect to future events and financial performance and may include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that the Company expects, projects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future, including, without limitation, the delivery of vessels, the outlook for tanker shipping rates, general industry conditions future operating results of the Company’s vessels, capital expenditures, expansion and growth opportunities, bank borrowings, financing activities and other such matters, are forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations stated in this presentation are based on reasonable assumptions, actual results may differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include the failure of counterparties to fully perform their obligations to us, the strength of the world economies and currencies, general market conditions, including changes in tanker vessel charter hire rates and vessel values, changes in demand for tankers, changes in our vessel operating expenses, including dry-docking, crewing and insurance costs, or actions taken by regulatory authorities, ability of customers of our pools to perform their obligations under charter contracts on a timely basis, potential liability from future litigation, domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents and political events or acts by terrorists. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward looking statement contained in this presentation, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. In light of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward looking events discussed in this presentation might not occur, and our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. 2 Section 1 Euronav at a Glance 2 3 Euronav – Largest Tanker Company in the World CURRENT FLEET – TOTAL 55 VESSELS – 13.7 MM DWT WHO WE ARE 1 V – PLUS (1) 2 FSO 20 SUEZMAX 30 VLCC (+2 TBD) Over 441,000 DWT 380k barrels Leading pure-play tanker company Up to 330,000 DWT with best-in-class operating platform 150,000 – 165,000 DWT Only 4 in world fleet Stripped water capacity Strong balance sheet Committed to shareholder 1MM barrels 2MM barrels 3 MM barrels 2.8 MM barrels long-term value creation… Avg. age 10 years Avg. age 6 years Avg. age 13 years Avg. age 14 years … with significant direct return to shareholders Notes: 1. Only 4 V-Plus vessels in world fleet Most liquid big tanker player in the world WELL POSITIONED FOR STRONG CASH FLOW GENERATION Breakeven (including debt service)(1): Spot Income - High Leverage to Upside 1 ~ USD 27,300 / day for VLCC – OpEx / day USD 8,165 3 Each USD 5,000 uplift (above break-even) in both VLCC and Suezmax rates improves net revenue and EBITDA ~ USD 24,000 / day for Suezmax – OpEx / day USD 7,520 by USD 72 million Yield or Growth – Why not both? Fixed Income 25 VLCC acquired in last 30 months 2 > USD 100 million of EBITDA (2) generated annually from 4 fixed income contracts (FSO + TC contracts) 80% of annualized P&L returned to shareholders since January 2015 (3) 1. Before TC-in/fixed income 2. Proportionate consolidation method & FSO contribution current contract runs to Q3 2017 3. Details of Company distribution policy at www.euronav.com 4 Shipping– access to finance is key in the “new normal” Tanker sector remain CYCLICAL but……………… Financing becoming STRUCTURALLY restricted 14% Mid to long term outlook positive 100 12% 95 m barrels consumedbarrels 10% 90 8% 85 per day per % growth %YOY fleet VLCC 6% 80 4% • “New Normal” financing restricts amount of newbuilding orders – less cyclical extremes 75 • Oil demand NOT cyclical – 1.1m average demand 2% growth last 20 years • Industrial players (more disciplined) will retain capital access leading to higher & more sustainable returns 0% 70 Source IEA, BLoomberg 5 Oil Tankers 2015 – All Green 2016-2017 – Mixed Five Key Drivers Long Term – All Green Demand for Oil Supply of Oil Ton Miles Supply of Vessels Financing ROBUST BALANCED REDUCED S/TERM NEW BARRIER HEADWINDS TO ENTRY • Oil demand growing • Atlantic sourced • New regulations last 25 years with Yearly • OPEC supply growth = L/TERM barrels been replaced by (Basel 3 & 4) restricting average 1.1 mbpd Non OPEC reduction primarily Middle East MANAGEABLE lending supply reducing ton • IEA forecast 1.4mbpd • USA production shale miles • Seasonal trends • Distress in shipping for 2016 and 1.2mbpd New Swing Producer impacted by factors very resilient & loans has reduced risk EVERY year to 2020 • USA crude exports to increasing tonnage responsive appetite increase ton miles from • Contracting rate fallen • Only 2 negative years 2017 substantially & shipyards • Equity in retreat of growth since 1990 for • Iran increase to pre under reform pressure PE & ship owners global crude demand sanction output forecast late 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 Section 2 Current trading 5 7 REMEMBER – Tankers remains a Seasonal Business SEASONALITY BUILT IN – EVERY Q2 DEMAND RETREATS AS REFINERY TANKER RATES SEASONAL BY NATURE – VLCC EARNINGS 2009-2016 MAINTENANCE & NORTHERN HEMISPHERE INTO SUMMER 120,000 97 96 $ USD/ Day 100,000 2011 Million Million barrels per day 95 2012 80,000 94 2013 2014 93 60,000 2015 92 40,000 2016 91 Average 2011-2015 20,000 90 89 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 88 Minimum 2009-2014 Maximum 2009-2014 2015 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source IEA Source Clarksons 8 Ton Mile Dislocation DISLOCATION IN VLCC EQUIVALENT TERMS = LOSS OF APPROX 20 VLCCS (ANNUALISED) 1 mbpd x 365 days = 365m barrels Arabian Gulf to China 21 days 365m barrels / 2m capacity per VLCC = 183 cargoes 5,500 miles 183 cargoes / 9 annual journeys for VLCC MEG – F East = 20 VLCCs West Africa to China 33 days 9,650 miles LatAm to China 44 days 11,500 miles Asia Pacific Middle East China 29 – 32 West Africa VLCCs LatAm / Caribs 52 – 54 1 mbpd x 365 days = 365m barrels VLCCs 365m barrels / 2m capacity per VLCC = 183 cargoes 183 cargoes / 4.5 annual journeys for VLCC Atlantic – F East = 40 VLCCs Source Euronav, Morgan Stanley 9 Q4 BEYOND Q3 IMPACTS AND RESPONSE • Reduction of delays in key ports Q2 Q3 • Weather impact less prevalent than previous CONGESTION summers (Mid East / Caribs) • One time negative impact on supply • Seasonality built into tanker sector SEASONALITY • Cargo count all times high during 2016 • Q4 rates +70% on average in 14 out of last 16 years • Loss of Atlantic barrels - Nigeria (600-800k bpd) & SUBSTITUTION – Venezuela (200k) has dislocated ton miles LOSS TON MILES • Nigeria force majeure ending; Far East retains focus on diversifying crude sourcing • 29 VLCC & Suezmax delivered to global fleet April – INCREASED August 2016 v 14 in same 2015 period CAPACITY/VESSELS • New vessels not vetted so first voyage at discount WITHOUT VETTINGS • Tanker delivery rate peaks mid 2017 • Speeds important as can alter tonnage capacity SPEED • Operational flexibility – affirmative action taken by ship owners reducing average VLCC speeds by c 10% since weaker rates 10 Section 3 Industry Dynamics 5 11 Oil Price – Impact on Demand 1 Demand for Oil OIL PRICE OUTLOOK 90 Lack of disruption/market share game Demand Destructive Iran and other supply remain high Shale - as swing producer increases 2009 - 2014 proved in this oil 80 output price range that demand was destroyed USD perbarrel 70 Neutral 60 50 Demand Stimulating proven over time that the cheaper 40 the commodity price the greater it is used 30 Demand Disruptive 20 Current structure of global markets mean energy/capex/sovereign wealth Capex cuts in E&P effects > consumer stimulus from 10 Potential coordinated cuts in production lower oil prices QE returns/$ loss of value/oil as financial asset 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 12 Demand – steady, robust and diversified 1 Demand for Oil GLOBAL OIL DEMAND 1990-2016 (MB/D) CHINA CRUDE OIL IMPORT DIVERSIFICATION CONTINUES Average oil demand growth 1990-2015 =1.1 mbpd Russia 14% Other 20% 3.5 3.1 3.1 Source IEA 3 Est. Libya 1% 2.5 Saudi Arabia 14% Kzakhstan 1% 2 Brazil 3% 1.9 1.8 2 1.7 1.6 Kuwait 4% 1.5 1.5 Est. 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1 1 1 Million Million barrels per day Venezuela 6% 0.8 0.8 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 Oman 11% 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 Iran 6% 0 Iraq 9% Angola 10% Source Bloomberg -0.5 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -1 -0.7 -0.9 CHINA CRUDE DEMAND – ROBUST INDIA CRUDE DEMAND – INCREASING IN IMPORTANCE 35 5 FORECAST 30 4.5 Q Q Q Q Q Q 25 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 Millions metric tonnes metric Millions 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 5 6 5 6 3 10 2.5 5 0 2 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016