Jean Salisbury: There’s been some news articles recently highlighting that the Biden administration is moving extremely slowly on approving non-FTA LNG export permits. Could this become a gating issue for CC 8 and 9 FID? And is there any flexibility that you might have in your portfolio to FID, CC 8 and 9, even if you’re waiting for that permit.
Jack Fusco: I don’t think it’s going to be a gating issue at all. We’re already commercialized the repeat customers 8, 9 are backed by Chevron, Equinor, and Petro China. Yes. So I feel pretty good about where 8, 9 are. I’m also very optimistic. I mean, Chairman, Willie Phillips at FERC, he’s been moving things along. I mean he’s been acting in a bipartisan manner. We’ve seen good signs coming out of there recently. I’m hopeful that energy security now is on top of everybody’s mind and our allies need more, not less from the U.S.
Zach Davis: And I’ll just add, basically, we need to get going on construction of Train 8 and 9 at Corpus in 2026 as the first 7 trains complete. And our goal is definitely well ahead of that to get going. In the meantime, with the cash that we have, the flexibility we have in our revolvers and term loans long lead items opportunistically. We’ll lock that in, in the coming year or so when possible. So yes, we don’t see issues there. We have quite a bit of buffer just with trains 1 through 7 coming online in ’25 and ’26.
Jean Salisbury: Okay. Great. That’s helpful. Sounds like the news reports are a little overstated. And then as a follow-up, my understanding is that most are all of the recent contracts that you signed that are linked to the Sabine Pass expansion can be kept even if you delay the expansion. Which would give you the option to be close to 100% contracted on your volumes exiting Pass expansion. Am I thinking about this correctly as sort of the base case for Cheniere here if you can’t ultimately get to the numbers that you want for the Sabine Pass expansion ?
Anatol Feygin: I guess we’ll tag team this to some extent. But yes, you’re absolutely right in the sense the contracts that we enter into give us tremendous flexibility on where they ultimately wind up and what projects they ultimately support. Now of course, for, we’re very proud of the fact that unlike most projects to date, it does not have bridging volumes. It is linked initially to Sabine Train 8, our first contract that supports Train 8. But ultimately, we have full flexibility on where that contract ends up. So you’re absolutely right in your assumption of kind of an extreme case that can be the decision to keep the contract if we so choose and not proceed for example.
Zach Davis: Yes, that’s right. So basically, depending on the timing, yes, we might have to bridge some of these contracts with existing capacity, and we’ll have that with our 55-plus million tons when Stage 3 comes online. And in these other scenarios that you just can’t see when you’re seeing out on the curve, still $5, $6 margins in a few years. Yes, we could be 100% contracted in a downside scenario. But that’s not the plan. We’re moving forward with the development of both of the sites. And we’re going to try to stick to that 90%, give or take, contracted level.
Operator: We’ll go next to Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research.
Keith Stanley: On the 2024 volume, so I realize it’s only 50 TBtu unsold and you’re closer to the run rate EBITDA. Is there any way to think about or quantify if any material amount of next year’s production was sold as bridging volumes for Stage 3 or shorter-term contracts that are more linked to what forward curves were at the time or should we think of it as 98% of productions effectively sold at long-term SPA type prices?
Zach Davis: I’d say almost, some of the numbers I’d give you is basically this year, we had over 40 million tons of long-term contracts. Next year, once we have full year of some of the contracts that started this year, some step-ups and even the start of a contract with PETRONAS will be over 43 million tons of long-term contracting. I will say with 50 TBtu open, the team has always been proactive. And they’ve already sold a few cargoes for next year in the — on a short-term basis, but just a few, but in that $9 to $10 range that you can see on the curve today. So there’s a little already embedded in there. And yes, we’ll see where we are in February. We’ll probably sold a bit more, but this is really our operational coverage to really fulfilling our obligations on 43-plus million tons of long-term contracts.
Keith Stanley: That’s helpful. Second one, just clarifications on Stage 3 with it running ahead of plan. So can you remind us commissioning cargoes are treated as a reduction in the capital cost, but if you get the substantial completion early, those excess volumes should drive higher EBITDA in 2025 and ’26? And then relatedly, if we think about a 7 train project, should we expect if the first train comes on 3 to 6 months early, is that pretty even then for the rest of the trains as you see it coming on 3 to 6 months early? Or is it lumpy?
Zach Davis: Basically, yes. We’ll give you updates as we keep on progressing on each. We have goals for each of the trains. First and foremost is getting Train 1 up and running. And hopefully, the rest are relatively cookie cutter to there, but it will take through ’26 really to complete the state, the 7 trains and get them to substantial completion. And you’re right, if we get into commissioning, you won’t see like you won’t see EBITDA in 2024 related to Stage 3. But at the rate we’re going, next November’s call for production in ’25 and open capacity will be a lot more interesting than today.
Operator: We’ll go next to Craig Shere with TE Brothers.
Craig Shere: So what — how does it look in terms of further potentially upsizing legacy train capacity beyond 5 MTPA and could any concerted effort in that regard work concurrently with your efforts to contract out in FID, your SPL Stage 5 expansion?
Jack Fusco: Yes. So Craig, this is Jack. So the team is constantly looking at our debottlenecking and maintenance optimization program. So I have a lot of respected faith for this operating group and their ability to continue to surprise us. So it’s my expectation that we will get technically get above 5 MTPA per train. But it may take some additional work before we get there. As far as how it connects to the SPL expansion, as Zach said, our focus is to get that commercialized to get those costs under control and locked in and meet our financial objectives and build those trains. So while we have a lot of optionality and flexibility, we are 100% focused on construction.
