Aspen Institute Presentation - Charif Souki- June - 2009 · Source: Cheniere Research, BP Statistical Review 2008 (Reserve data) *Based on updated Turkmenistan reserves from Oct.

Aspen Institute

June 2009

2

This presentation contains certain statements that are, or may be deemed to be, “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included herein are “forward-looking statements.”Included among “forward-looking statements” are, among other things:

statements that we expect to commence or complete construction of each or any of our proposed liquefied natural gas, or LNG, receiving terminals by certain dates, or at all;statements that we expect to receive authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to construct and operate proposed LNG receiving terminals by a certain date, or at all;statements regarding future levels of domestic natural gas production and consumption, or the future level of LNG imports into North America, or regarding projected future capacity of liquefaction or regasification facilities worldwide regardless of the source of such information;statements regarding any financing transactions or arrangements, whether on the part of Cheniere or at the project level;statements relating to the construction of our proposed LNG receiving terminals, including statements concerning estimated costs, and the engagement of any EPC contractor; statements regarding any Terminal Use Agreement, or TUA, or other commercial arrangements presently contracted, optioned, marketed or potential arrangements to be performed substantially in the future, including any cash distributions and revenues anticipated to be received; statements regarding the commercial terms and potential revenues from activities described in this presentation;statements regarding the commercial terms or potential revenue from any arrangements which may arise from the marketing of uncommitted capacity from any of the terminals, including the Creole Trail and Corpus Christi terminals which do not currently have contractual commitments;statements regarding the commercial terms or potential revenue from any arrangement relating to the proposed contracting for excess or expansion capacity for the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal described in this presentation;statements that our proposed LNG receiving terminals, when completed, will have certain characteristics, including amounts of regasification and storage capacities, a number of storage tanks and docks and pipeline interconnections;statements regarding Cheniere, Cheniere Energy Partners and Cheniere Marketing forecasts, and any potential revenues, cash flows and capital expenditures which may be derived from any of Cheniere business groups; statements regarding Cheniere Pipeline Company, and the capital expenditures and potential revenues related to this business group; statements regarding our proposed LNG receiving terminals’ access to existing pipelines, and their ability to obtain transportation capacity on existing pipelines;statements regarding possible expansions of the currently projected size of any of our proposed LNG receiving terminals;statements regarding the payment by Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. of cash distributions;statements regarding our business strategy, our business plan or any other plans, forecasts, examples, models, forecasts or objectives; any or all of which are subject to change; statements regarding estimated corporate overhead expenses; andany other statements that relate to non-historical information.

These forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of terms and phrases such as “achieve,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “example,” “expect,” “forecast,” “opportunities,”“plan,” “potential,” “project,” “propose,” “subject to,” and similar terms and phrases. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, they do involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties, and these expectations may prove to be incorrect. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this presentation. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors, including those discussed in “Risk Factors” in the Cheniere Energy, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which are incorporated by reference into this presentation. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by these ”Risk Factors”. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this presentation, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.

Safe Harbor Act

1

3

LNG’s Role in the Global Gas Market

LNG & the globalization of natural gas

Unconventional gas development in the US & world

Disruption of the oil-indexed price model

Implication for oil & gas price link

4

Global Prices & LinkageImplications

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Jan-07 May-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 May-09

US$/MMBtu

$0

$30

$60

$90

$120

$150

US$/Barrel

US Henry Hub

UK NBP

Asia Spot LNG Avg

JCC

Brent Crude

Source: PIRA Energy Group, Petroleum Association of Japan (JCC)

Note: 6 MMBtu per 1 Oil BarrelJCC = Japanese Crude Cocktail

• Convergence of spot prices• Disconnect from crude

5

Global Oil Production & Spare Capacity

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Million b/d

Global Oil ProductionSpare Capacity

’79 OPEC shock creates

’80s supply bubble

’08 price spike starts new bubble

Source: EIA April ’09 International Petroleum Monthly (Global Production)EIA March ‘09 Short-Term Energy Outlook, IMF, Cheniere Research (Spare Capacity)

6

Global Natural Gas Supply & Demand Rapid reserve and demand growth

Global Proved Gas Reserves Trillion Cubic Feet

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

OECD

Non-OECD Europe & EurAsia

Other Non-OECD

TCF

World Gas Demand

281145

0

100

200

300

1980 2007

Bcf/d

Since 1980World Gas Demand: +94%

World Gas Reserves:+140%

Source: EIA 2009 (Historical World Reserves & Demand)

Bcf/dBcf/d

7

World-wide Robust LNG Supply Potential

6,263 Tcf- world PROVED gas reservesR/P Ratio: 61 YearsUSGS estimates additional 6,000+ Tcf undiscovered conventional gas reserves

Source: BP Statistical Review - 2008

Worldwide Proved Natural Gas Reserves (Tcf)(Countries exceeding 20 Tcf)

1,576

982904

253 215 211 187 182112 94106 105 6687 6573 5863 53 44 3637

Rus

sia

Iran

Qat

ar

Saud

i Ara

bia

UA

E

US

Nig

eria

160

Alg

eria

Vene

zuel

a

Iraq

67

Kaz

akhs

tan

Turk

men

ista

n

Indo

nesi

a

Nor

way

Chi

na

Mal

aysi

a

Uzb

ekis

tan

Egyp

t

Can

ada

Kuw

ait

Liby

a

Net

herla

nds

Ukr

aine

Indi

a

89

Aus

tral

ia

24

Om

an

30

Paki

stan

26

Bol

ivia

Current LNG Exporters

Other Countries w/ Significant Reserves

45

Aze

rbai

jan

8

Liquefaction Capacity Growing SharplyLNG is not a commodity, it is a means of delivery

Liquefaction Capacity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2001

H

2002

H

2003

H

2004

H

2005

H

2006

H

2007

H

2008

H

2009

F

2010

F

2011

F

2012

F

2013

F

2014

F

Bcf/d

Source: Cheniere Research

9

Global Potential for UnconventionalGas Production is Huge

“[Ultimately recoverable remaining resources of] Non-conventional gas resources – including coalbed methane, tight gas sands and gas shales – are much larger, amounting perhaps to over 900 tcm (31,000 Tcf), with 25% in the US and Canada combined.”IEA World Energy Outlook 2008

Coalbed and Shale-Gas Reservoirs, Jenkins et al, Society of Petroleum Engineers paper 103514

Comparison of Global CBM Resources (IHS)

Global Distribution of Tight Gas Resources (Wood McKenzie)

10

Asia Natural Gas Picture

High prices have encouraged:

Demand control in Japan, Korea & Taiwan (mature LNG markets tied to Japanese Crude Cocktail)Pipeline alternatives in China & India, including unconventional gas (emerging LNG markets)Beginning of disconnect from oil pricing

11

Asia Pacific* Natural Gas Demand Projection

Pipeline

Bcf/d

Source: Historical: Cedigaz (2007);Forecast: Cheniere Research

30

25

20

15

10

5

02007 2010

Oil Indexed

Pipeline LNG

Japan9

Japan9

15 Bcf/d

Korea3

Korea3

China7

China7

Australia3

Australia3

India4

India4 Taiwan

1Taiwan

1

16Bcf/d

LNG56%

LNG50%

Incremental LNG Need

2010 = ~1 Bcf/d

Consumption 2007 = 27 Bcf/d2010 = 32 Bcf/d

* OECD Asia plus India & China

LNG Import Capacity2007 = 34 Bcf/d2010 = 37 Bcf/d

Pipeline ImportCapacity

Eventually Large

Bcf/d

Oil Indexed

Regional Demand by Country (2007)Regional Demand by Country (2007)

12

KrishnaGodavari

Basin

New Asia PipesThroughput Capacity

0

2

4

6

8

YE 2009 2012

Bcf/d

ChinaIndia+1.9

Bcf/d

+5.7Bcf/d

Turkmenistan-China Pipeline

+3 Bcf/d

CBM

India KJV Pipeline

+2.8 Bcf/d

China West-East #2 Pipeline

+2.9 Bcf/d

CBM

CBM

Central Asia400 TcfProved*

Russia1,600 TcfProved

Source: Cheniere Research, BP Statistical Review 2008 (Reserve data)*Based on updated Turkmenistan reserves from Oct. 2008 Gaffney, Cline & Associates survey of South Yolotan-Osman field

New Asia PipelinesMajor projects boost access to indigenous reserves

Siberia1,500+ Tcf

Unexplored Potential

13

European Natural Gas Picture

Demand contractionIncreased LNG importsIncreased pipeline capacityPotential for unconventional resourcesLimited storageBrent indexation – oil & gas price divergence threatens business model for long-term buyers– What happens to established players if spot prices are below

contract prices?

14

European* Natural Gas Demand Projections

Bcf/d

Source: Historical: Cedigaz (2007), GIIGNL;Forecast: Cheniere Research

Regional Demand by Country (2007)Regional Demand by Country (2007)

Europe-Med15

Europe-Med15

W. Europe18

W. Europe18

U.K.9

U.K.9

LNG

Pipeline

70

60

5040

3020

100

2007 2010E

Pipeline LNG

89%90%

6 Bcf/d 5 Bcf/d

Domestic Production2007 = 28 Bcf/d2010 = 29 Bcf/d

NBP Indexed Oil Indexed

LNG Import Capacity2007 = 10 Bcf/d 2010 = 19 Bcf/d

Consumption 2007 = 50 Bcf/d 2010 = 53 Bcf/d

Incremental LNG Need2010 = ~1 Bcf/d

*Europe includes EU 27, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey

Bcf/d

Rest8

Rest8

Pipeline Import Capacity2007 = 29 Bcf/d2010 = 32 Bcf/d

15

European Suppliers are Undertaking a Significant Expansion of Pipeline Capacity

New Pipeline

Existing Pipeline

Expansion

Source: BP Statistical Review; GIIGNL; Cheniere Research

20070.3Turkey-Greece Intercon.

20110.8Italy-Greece Interconnect.

TBD2.9NabuccoIran/Caspian20060.3Maghreb-Europe (Exp.)20120.8 – 1.0Galsi20090.6Transmed (Expansion)20090.8MedgazAlgeria20080.6TAG Expansion20070.4TAG Loop II20122.6 - 5.3Nord Stream (NEGP)Russia20061.5BBLNetherlands20071.9LangeledNorway

DateBcf/dPipelineSupplier

Incremental Pipeline Supplies in Europe

Total Incremental Capacity13.5 – 16.7 Bcf/d

Large and Growing Piped Gas Supply

Europe = EU 27, plus Switzerland and Turkey

Unconventional Gas Potential=

16

Projected LNG Flows in 2010Global LNG Supply of ~30 Bcf/d

Existing LiquefactionUnder ConstructionProposed Liquefaction

Atlantic Basin~11 Bcf/d

Atlantic Basin~11 Bcf/d

ME Gulf13 Bcf/dME Gulf13 Bcf/d

Asia Pacific13 Bcf/d

Asia Pacific13 Bcf/d

2010 Europe6 Bcf/d

2010 Europe6 Bcf/d

2010 Asia Pacific16 Bcf/d

2010 Asia Pacific16 Bcf/d

2010 Liquefaction Capacity

2010 Consumption

Source: Cheniere Research

MEG LNG to Atlantic Basin*: 6-8 Bcf/dLNG Available for Americas: 10-12 Bcf/dMEG LNG to Atlantic Basin*: 6MEG LNG to Atlantic Basin*: 6--8 Bcf/d8 Bcf/dLNG Available for Americas: 10LNG Available for Americas: 10--12 Bcf/d12 Bcf/d

* Assumes 85%-92% LNG plant utilization rate.

17

North America

Critical role of US in global gas market

Questions:Can the US absorb the LNG?Will LNG become a part of the US energy mix?What are the implications for oil & gas linkage in the US & globally?

18

North American Demand & Onshore Terminals

Historical: EIA (2007), Cheniere Research

Bcf/d Demand by Country and Region (2007)

Bcf/d Demand by Country and Region (2007)

0.7

1919

Canada9

Canada9

1313 1414

Mexico7

Mexico7

0.7

0.81.0

1.0

1.5

11.7

77

99

Altamira 700Shell, Total

Costa Azul 1,000Shell, Sempra

Canaport 1,000Irving, Repsol

Total 16,800

Golden Pass 2,000EOM, ConocoPhillips, QP

Cameron 1,500Sempra, ENI

Sabine Pass 4,000Total, Chevron, Cheniere

Freeport 1,500ConocoPhillips, Dow

Lake Charles - BG 1,800

Elba Island 800BG, Marathon, Shell

Cove Point 1,800BP, Statoil, Shell

Everett - Suez 700

BaseloadSendout (MMcf/d)

TerminalCapacity Holder

Altamira 700Shell, Total

Costa Azul 1,000Shell, Sempra

Canaport 1,000Irving, Repsol

Total 16,800

Golden Pass 2,000EOM, ConocoPhillips, QP

Cameron 1,500Sempra, ENI

Sabine Pass 4,000Total, Chevron, Cheniere

Freeport 1,500ConocoPhillips, Dow

Lake Charles - BG 1,800

Elba Island 800BG, Marathon, Shell

Cove Point 1,800BP, Statoil, Shell

Everett - Suez 700

BaseloadSendout (MMcf/d)

TerminalCapacity HolderLNG Import Capacity Bcf/d

Existing Facilities 5.0Expansion of existing 0.8

New Terminals 11.0NA Total by 2010 16.8

LNG Import Capacity Bcf/dExisting Facilities 5.0

Expansion of existing 0.8New Terminals 11.0

NA Total by 2010 16.8

Existing TerminalUnder Construction

19

US Unconventional Production Basins Proximate to Premium Markets and Major Pipelines

Sources: EIA (US map graphic, pipelines and LNG terminals placed by Cheniere).Advanced Resources Intl (Lower 48 Unconventional Recoverable Reserves) Depicted Pipelines: Rockies Express, Texas Eastern, Trunkline, Transco, FGT, C/P/SESH/Gulf Crossing (as a single route)Depicted LNG terminals: Freeport, Golden Pass, Sabine Pass, Cameron, Trunkline, Elba Island, Cove Point, Everett.

Lower 48 UNC Technically Recoverable Reserves (Tcf)

0

200

400

600

800

1996 2006

ShaleCBMTight Gas

366 Tcf

580 Tcf

US Proved

Reserves

20

US Gas Rig Count, Production & PricesDrilling has Collapsed with Price, Oversupply

Dry Production+ 2.7 Bcf/d YE ’08

Rigs -55%from ’08 Peak

Gas Prices -70%from ’08 Peak

US Gas Rig Count & Henry Hub Price

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Jan-00

Jul-00

Jan-01

Jul-01

Jan-02

Jul-02

Jan-03

Jul-03

Jan-04

Jul-04

Jan-05

Jul-05

Jan-06

Jul-06

Jan-07

Jul-07

Jan-08

Jul-08

Jan-09

Active Rigs

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

1491

1025

1186

1372

1466

691

872

720

939

$HH Cash

917

44

48

52

56

Annual average

Source: EIA, Baker Hughes, PlattsLower 48 Production (Bcf/d)

21

Lower 48 Wellhead Production & Gas Rig CountProductive Capacity will Fall Sharply as Drilling is Curtailed

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11

Bcf/d

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700Active Gas Rigs

900 Rig 700 Rig 500 Rig

Lower 48 Wellhead Production

Lower 48 Gas Rig Count

US Prod from YE 08

-3-6.3 -8.6-1.6

-3.2-4.1

-1.6

-3.2

-4.1

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

0YE 09 YE 10 YE 11

Bcf/d

900 rigs 700 rigs 500 rigs

Source: Lippman Consulting, EIA, Baker Hughes, Cheniere Research

22

Conclusions

The world has abundant supplies of cheap, stranded natural gas reserves which can now be monetizedHigh energy prices have created ripple effects which will impact markets for years to come– Diversification of supply sources in America, Europe & Asia– Technological breakthroughs in US unconventional gas will be

applied on a global scale to unlock new reserves– Disruption of oil-gas price linkage– LNG acts as a bridge between continents to normalize price– De-link from crude prices creates tension on business models