Presentation to the Committee of 100 Sabine Pass LNG and Liquefaction Pat Outtrim Vice President – Government and Regulatory Affairs February 8, 2012.

Presentation to the Committee of 100Sabine Pass LNG and Liquefaction

Pat OuttrimVice President – Government and Regulatory AffairsFebruary 8, 2012

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 1933, as amended. 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 a liquefaction facility by certain dates, or at all;

Statements that we expect to receive authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, or the Department of Energy, or DOE to construct and operate a proposed liquefaction facility by a certain date, or at all;

Statements regarding future levels of domestic or foreign natural gas production and consumption, or the future level of LNG imports into North America or exports from the U.S., or regarding projected future capacity of liquefaction or regasification facilities worldwide;

Statements regarding any financing transactions or arrangements, whether on the part of Cheniere or at the project level;

Statements regarding any commercial arrangements marketed or potential arrangements to be performed 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 that our proposed liquefaction facility, when completed, will have certain characteristics, including a number of trains;

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; and

Any 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. and Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.

Forward Looking Statements

1

3

In the Beginning…

Cheniere Energy was formed in 1996 to fund an exploration project, “the Cameron Project”, to evaluate, explore and develop drilling prospects in southwest Louisiana

Two gas discoveries were made – “Redfish” and “Stingray”

By 1999 the company had licensed 8,800 square miles of seismic data and reprocessed this data using cutting edge technology

By the late 1990’s natural gas drilling was yielding less production per well at higher costs suggesting gas production could not sustain the growing U.S. demand and providing an opportunity to import LNG

By 2001 Cheniere had assembled an experienced LNG project development team to evaluate the economic feasibility of delivering LNG to North America

This team then began to evaluate suitable locations to construct one of the first new LNG import terminals in more than 25 years

4

U.S. Gas Pipeline SystemGulf Coast-centered transmission system reaches all US markets

TerminalCapacity Holder

BaseloadSendout (MMcf/d)

Canaport 1,000Repsol

Everett - Suez 700

Cove Point 1,800BP, Statoil, Shell

Elba Island 1,800BG, Marathon, Shell

Gulf LNG 1,300 Angola LNG, ENI

Lake Charles - BG 1,800

Freeport 1,500ConocoPhillips, Dow, Mitsui

Sabine Pass 4,000Total, Chevron, Cheniere

Cameron 1,500Sempra, ENI

Golden Pass 2,000ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, QP

Altamira 700Shell, Total

Costa Azul 1,000Shell, Sempra, Gazprom

Total 19,100

EverettEverett

Cove Point Cove Point

Elba IslandElba Island

Lake CharlesLake Charles

Sabine PassSabine PassFreeportFreeport

Golden PassGolden Pass

CameronCameron

Costa AzulCosta Azul

CanaportCanaport

AltamiraAltamira

Gulf LNGGulf LNG

5

Operational since 2008 Cost ~$1.6 billion Vaporization

– ~4.3 Bcf/d peak send-out

Storage– 5 tanks x 160,000 cm (16.9 Bcfe)

Berthing / Unloading– Two docks– LNG carriers up to 267,000 cm– Four dedicated tugs

Land– 1000 acres in Cameron Parish, LA

Accessibility – Deep Water Ship Channel– Sabine River Channel dredged to 40 feet

Proximity – 3.7 nautical miles from coast

– 22.8 nautical miles from outer buoy LNG Re-Exporting Capability

Sabine Pass LNG

Aerial view of Sabine Pass LNG Terminal

3

6

Cheniere in the Community

Cheniere has invested over $6 million in surrounding communities

Major Projects: Johnson Bayou Rural Health Clinic, Economic Development and Planning Office

PILOT Program: Providing advance tax payments to Cameron Parish in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita

7

Sabine Pass LNG

The Shale Gas Revolution

8

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

US

Ru

ssia

Ira

n

Qa

tar

Tu

rkm

en

ista

n

Sa

ud

i Ara

bia

UA

E

Ve

ne

zue

la

Nig

eri

a

Alg

eri

a

Ira

q

Ind

on

esi

a

Au

stra

lia

Ch

ina

Ma

lays

ia

Eg

ypt

No

rwa

y

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Ku

wa

it

TCF U.S. Natural Gas Resource Base • 2,612 TCF of total recoverable reserves

• 700 TCF recoverable shales

• 400 TCF of shales economical below $6/MMBtu

U.S. Natural Gas Resource Base • 2,612 TCF of total recoverable reserves

• 700 TCF recoverable shales

• 400 TCF of shales economical below $6/MMBtu

Source: 2011 BP Statistical Review (Global Reserves); Advanced Resources International US Natural Gas Resources & Productive Capacity, August 2010 (US Resource Base) ; MIT, The Future of Natural Gas, 2009 (shales economic below $6)

1,216 Tcf Unconventional

272 Tcf Proved Reserves

1,124 Tcf Conventional

Global Natural Gas Reserves

Unconventional gas is abundant globally, but only the U.S. has the technical capability to develop at present

9

U.S. Gas Consumption vs. Production

Source: EIA historical, September 2011 Short-Term Energy Outlook (2011 data)

Hot Summer & Cold Winter

Hot Summer & Cold Winter

Since 2005 U.S. production growth ~ 4.9 Tcf vs. demand growth ~ 2.6 Tcf Net imports declined ~1.6 Tcf (-50%) over the period ~ 1 Tcf production added each year since 2006 The U.S. is on pace to be a net gas exporter by mid-decade

US Gas Production

18.0 18.5 19.3 20.1 20.6 21.6 22.9

22.0 21.723.1 23.2 22.8

24.1 24.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E

Tcf

U.S. Gas Consumption

U.S. Gas Production

1010

Resulting Productive Capacity Estimates Vast

Existing conventional production to continue declining from current 40% share of supply

Unconventional production, led by gains in gas shales, projected to achieve capacity of 50+ Bcf/d

Total North American productive capacity 90+ Bcf/d by 2020

Unconventional gas is currently a critical

component of U.S. supply and will continue to grow

into the future

Unconventional gas is currently a critical

component of U.S. supply and will continue to grow

into the future

$6.50 HH Price

$5.50 to $7.00 HH Price

11

Gas Substitution in Transportation Sector

~40 Bcf/d Surplus with NGV Subsidy

Production Data: EIA (2005-2010), Advanced Resources Intl "US Natural Gas Resources and Productive Capacity mid-2010 Update" (Post-2010), August 2010.

NGV Data: EIA AEO 2010 Alternative Case – “Natural gas as a fuel for heavy trucks” 2027 Incentive Phaseout Case

0

10

20

30

40

50

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

US Production Change Since 2005

NGV Demand AEO 2011

NGV Demand High Subsidy

Bcf/d

Actual

Projected @ $7/Mcf

U.S. NGV demand w/heavy subsidies would reach 4 Bcf/d by 2032 – 21 years (EIA forecast)

Louisiana gas production +4 Bcf/d in 2 years U.S. gas production +4 Bcf/d in 1 year

12

Gas Use in US Power Generation Sector

0

10

20

30

40

50

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

US Production Change Since 2005

NCI Spring 2010 Carbon Plus Case

EIA AEO 2011 Reference Powergen

Bcf/d

Actual

Projected @ $7/Mcf

Production Data: EIA (2005-2010), Advanced Resources Intl "US Natural Gas Resources and Productive Capacity mid-2010 Update,“ August 2010 (Post-2010).

Powergen Data: EIA AEO 2011 Reference Case; Navigant Consulting Inc.’s Spring 2010 Reference Case, "Market Analysis for Sabine Pass LNG Export Project", August 23, 2010

~26 Bcf/d surplus with CO2 limits

$4 gas prices have caused ~2.5 Bcf/d of coal switching – not sufficient to absorb supply growth

Near-term switching limited by 40+ GW of modern coal & renewables due online thru 2015

13

Sabine Pass LNG

The Future

14

Proposed SPL Project: Brownfield Development Utilizing Existing Assets

Current Facility 1000 acres in Cameron Parish, LA 40 ft ship channel 3.7 miles from coast 2 berths; 4 dedicated tugs 5 LNG storage tanks (17 Bcf of storage) 4.3 Bcf/d peak regasification capacity 5.3 Bcf/d of pipeline interconnection to

the US pipeline networkLiquefaction Expansion Construction contract w/Bechtel for Phase 1 Up to four liquefaction trains designed with

ConocoPhillips’ Optimized Cascade® Process technology

Six GE LM2500+ G4 gas turbine driven refrigerant compressors per train

Gas treating and environmental compliance Modifications to the Creole Trail Pipeline for

bi-directional service Sixth tank if needed for fourth train

Existing operational

facility

Proposed expansion

Significant infrastructure in place including storage, marine and pipeline interconnection facilities; pipeline quality natural gas to be sourced from U.S. pipeline network

15

Sabine Pass LiquefactionInfrastructure and Jobs

Infrastructure Investment ~ $10 B including– $2.3 B materials & equipment – Over $2 B potential U.S. sourced equipment– More than $1 B construction wages/benefits

Direct Jobs– 100-200 permanent jobs at the terminal– Average construction jobs of 1,800 for four to six years– Peak of 3,000 – 13 million man-hours

Indirect Jobs– Will support ~50,000 permanent jobs in natural gas industry– Construction timeline 2012-2018

16

Sabine Pass LiquefactionApproximate Project Timeline – Trains 1 & 2

2010 2010

NEPA Notice(beginning of 6

month consultation

period w. FERC)

Initial commercial discussions with

counterparties under CA

Initial discussions with local, political,

and regulatory constituents

Public Announcement

2011 2011 2012 2012 20152015

File FERCApplication

Obtain construction

financing commitments

FERCAuthorizationto Commence Construction

Full Notice to Proceed for

EPC CommenceFull

Commercial Bi-

directionalService

NOTE: Timeline represents an estimate of expected events and is continually changing.Actions outlined in red are completed.

Start up Liquefaction Train 1

All Permit

s grante

d

DOE Authorization to export LNG to

Free Trade countries

As of January 2012

FEED Complete

Sales Purchas

e Agreeme

nts Signed

Train 2 will start up 6 to 9 months after Train 1.

Trains 3 and 4 start up will be similarly staggered.

DOE Authorization to export LNG to non-Free

Trade countries

File DOE Applications

to export LNG produced in

USA

17

Sabine Pass LNG

The Case For LNG Exports

18

Cove Point Cove Point

Lake Charles Lake Charles

Sabine Pass Sabine Pass

CameronCameron

Export Terminals

Source: Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

U.S. LNG Export Projects

Jordan CoveJordan Cove

Company Capacity(Bcf/d)

DOE Filing

FERC Filing

Sabine Pass Liquefaction

2.2 Corpus Christi Liquefaction

1.8 *

Freeport LNG Expansion

2.8 *

Lake Charles Exports

2.0 Dominion Cove Point

1.0 Jordan Cove Energy Project

1.2 Cameron LNG 1.7 Gulf Coast LNG Export

2.8

Freeport Freeport

Corpus Christi Corpus Christi

Gulf LNG Gulf LNG * FERC Pre-Filing Process

19

Attractive Oil Linked Market Prices

~ 12% – 15% of Oil Prices~ 12% – 15% of Oil Prices

Source: PIRA, Platts

$3.85

$9.51

$14.97$12.45

Regional Natural Gas & LNG Prices

0

6

12

18

Jan-

04M

ar-0

4M

ay-0

4Ju

l-04

Sep

-04

Nov

-04

Jan-

05M

ar-0

5M

ay-0

5Ju

l-05

Sep

-05

Nov

-05

Jan-

06M

ar-0

6M

ay-0

6Ju

l-06

Sep

-06

Nov

-06

Jan-

07M

ar-0

7M

ay-0

7Ju

l-07

Sep

-07

Nov

-07

Jan-

08M

ar-0

8M

ay-0

8Ju

l-08

Sep

-08

Nov

-08

Jan-

09M

ar-0

9M

ay-0

9Ju

l-09

Sep

-09

Nov

-09

Jan-

10M

ar-1

0M

ay-1

0Ju

l-10

Sep

-10

Nov

-10

Jan-

11M

ar-1

1M

ay-1

1Ju

l-11

Sep

-11

$/MMBtu

NBP IFERC HH Monthly Japan avg LNG European Gas Contract

Spread between oil linked and U.S. natural gas prices averaging $9–$11/mmbtu

20

Europe - LNG Import Terminals (Bcf/d)

10.14

5.46

Mediterranean

2009 2015

2.392.53

5.92

NW Europe

2009 2015

23.42

7.68

UK & Ireland

2009 2015

2009 LNG Imports6.8 Bcf/d

LNG Terminals (Bcf/d)

Existing 16.09

Firm 7.50

Proposed 19.06

Total 42.65

3.11

Current Importers

Potential Importers

Belgium Bulgaria

France Croatia

Greece Cyprus

Italy Germany

Netherlands* Ireland

Portugal Poland

Spain Romania

Turkey Sweden

UK Ukraine

21

Asia – Emerging Markets

KrishnaGodavari

Basin

2.51.1

Central Asia11

Proved*

China West-East #2 Pipeline +2.9 Bcf/d

China West-East #2 Pipeline +2.9 Bcf/d

Turkmenistan-China Pipeline

+3 Bcf/d

Turkmenistan-China Pipeline

+3 Bcf/d

Unconventional Gas Potential

Proved Reserves (Tcm)

Major Pipelines

22.5

26

131

India KJV Pipeline

+2.8 Bcf/d

India KJV Pipeline

+2.8 Bcf/d

2009 2020

LNG Terminals (Bcf/d) Existing

Under Construction

Planned

22

Regas Terminals in Latin

LNG Terminals (Bcf/d)

Existing

Firm

Proposed

0.5

3.4

6.4

2009 2015

Current Importers Potential Importers

Argentina

Brazil

Chile

Dominican Republic

Mexico

Puerto Rico

Honduras

Jamaica

Uruguay

Pipelines

Existing

Under Construction

17

234

12

Proved Reserves (Tcf)

13

Source: BP Statistical Review 2011, Cheniere Research

23

Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports Will…

Promote stability in domestic natural gas pricing by raising domestic natural gas productive capacity; and

Stimulate state, regional and national economies through job creation, increased economic activity and tax revenues, including the direct creation of approximately 3,000 engineering and construction jobs during the course of the project and, indirectly, 30,000 - 50,000 permanent jobs in the exploration and production sector

Reduced reliance on foreign sources of oil by promoting domestic production of petroleum and by encouraging the drilling of wells in areas where there is a significant amount of natural gas associated with crude oil and natural gas liquids (“NGL”)

24

Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports Will…

Improve U.S. balance of payments through the exportation of approximately 2 Bcf/d of natural gas valued at approximately $5 billion, and the displacement of $1.7 billion in NGL imports thus furthering the President’s National Export Initiative

Promote liberalization of the global natural gas trade through the fostering of a global, liquid market, based on prices cleared in free and openly traded natural gas markets

Advance national security and the security of U.S. allies through diversification of global natural gas supplies

Increase economic trade and ties with foreign nations, including neighboring countries in the Americas, and displace environmentally damaging fuels in those countries

25