Good morning. Welcome to Next Decade Corporation's 4th Quarter 2025 Investor Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow management's prepared remarks. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star 0 on your telephone keypad. To ask a question, you may press star 1 on your phone. To withdraw your question, please press star 2. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Megan Light, Next Decade's Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Next Decade's fourth quarter 2025 investor update call and webcast. The slide presentation and access to the webcast for today's call are available on our website at www.next-decade.com. Today, I am joined by Matt Schatzman, Next Decade's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Mike Mott, Next Decade's Interim Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I would like to remind listeners that discussion on this call, including answers to your questions, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of U.S. federal securities law. These statements have been based on assumptions and analysis made by Next Decade in light of current expectations, perceptions of historical trends, current conditions, and projections about future events and trends. Although Next Decade believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that the expectations will prove to be correct. Next Decade's actual results can differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors, including those discussed in Next Decade's periodic reports that are filed with and available from the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, discussion on this call includes references to certain non-GAAP financial measures, such as adjusted EBITDA and distributable cash flow. A definition of and additional information regarding these measures can be found in the appendix to our presentation. And now, I will turn the call over to Matt Shotsman, Next Decade's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Megan, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. 2025 was another transformational year for Next Decade. We achieved milestones across multiple facets of the business, from construction and development to commercial and financial. Last year, we executed five 20-year LNG sale and purchase agreements, totaling 7.2 million tons per annum with Total Energies, Ramco, Jera, EQT, and ConocoPhillips. These agreements, along with the 1.9 million ton per annum SPA executed with ADNOC in 2024, completed the commercialization of Tranks 4 and 5 at strong LNG prices. across all 9.1 million tons per annum of spas executed for trains four and five our fixed liquefaction fees totaled approximately 1.2 billion dollars annually before escalation for inflation we achieved positive final investment decisions or fids on trains four and five in september and october respectively bringing us to 30 million tons per annum of lng production capacity under construction at the rio grande lng facility we fully funded each train at fid with approximately 60% debt and 40% equity, and we fully funded Next Decade's equity commitments using a back-leveraging approach that enabled us to secure funding with no material impact to common shares outstanding, a creative and unique approach that we're proud of, as it creates a bridge to an efficient, steady-state capital structure without materially impacting our common shares outstanding. Next Decade has an initial economic interest of 40% in Train 4 and 50% in Train 5. Our economic interest increased to 60% and 70%, respectively, once our financial partners achieve a certain return on their investments in each train. Throughout 2025, we also continue to progress the construction of phase one safely, on budget, and ahead of the guaranteed substantial completion days in partnership with Bechtel. Bechtel has an unmatched track record of LNG execution on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and we expect our trains at the Rio Grande LNG facility to continue the streak of strong execution. As of January, 2026, trains one and two are almost 65% complete, and train three is almost 40% complete. We have a high level of confidence in our early volume projections, and based on Bechtel's recent progress, we may have additional early volumes to sell. Michael discussed our volume projections in more detail with our guidance slides. As construction progresses, so do our operational readiness initiatives. we began a company-wide operational readiness program in early 2024 for the past two years we've been diligently working to put people processes and technologies in place to ensure a safe efficient and effective transition to commissioning and operations and to position next decade for operational excellence we've also been advancing our natural gas supply and transportation strategy and onboarding operational staff and back office personnel to support operations. Finally, early last year, we outlined our development plans for train 6 through 8 at the Rio Grande LNG facility. We initiated the pre-filing process with FERC for train 6 and a third berth in November, and we plan to file a full application with FERC for this expansion in mid-2026. Our ultimate development goal at the Rio Grande LNG facility is to double our capacity from 30 million tons per annum to 60 million tons per annum or 10 trains. Our key priorities for 2026 are focused on maximizing the value of next decade, and we've made meaningful progress toward our goals in the first two months of the year. First, one of our highest priorities is progressing construction at the Rio Grande LNG facility safely, on budget, and ahead of schedule. Ensuring our employees and Bechtel's get home safely every day is of prime importance. We achieved excellent safety metrics in 2025 with a total recordable incident rate, or TRIR, of 0.22, and we in Bechtel are focused on maintaining a low TRIR throughout the construction of the Rio Grande LNG facility. Bechtel has shown impressive performance at the site, progressing construction of phase one ahead of the guaranteed substantial completion dates while achieving high safety standards and working within our project budget. Now that trains four and five are under construction, we look to build upon the high quality work that has been done thus far with phase one. Second, we will continue to prepare our organization to begin commissioning activities at the facility this year, first LNG production in the first half of 2027, and transitioning train one to operations later in 2027. We are onboarding experienced, highly skilled team members, implementing systems and processes across the organization, and ensuring we're in place to support a smooth transition into operations. The work we're doing now and later this year will position us for operational excellence. Next, we are managing our near-term exposure to LNG market margins through the sale of projected early LNG cargos. Earlier this year, we began marketing early cargos projected to be produced prior to the commencement of our long-term SPAs. Year-to-date, we have sold over 175 trillion BTUs on a free onboard or FOB basis with fixed liquefaction fees that are expected to achieve margins, calculated as the FOB LNG sales price, less our expected cost of natural gas feedstock and fuel, of over $3 per MBTU. Throughout this year and early next year, we expect to sell additional early volumes as we increase our visibility of expected early LNG production and gain assurance on timing from Bechtel. Our final key priority for this year is advancing the development and permitting of trains six through eight. We're bullish about the long-term LNG market and the need for incremental LNG supply starting in the 2030s. In addition, we expect the permitting climate under the current administration to foster faster permit approval, which could allow us to FID train six as early as the second half of next year, subject to commercialization, EPC contracting, and financing. One of our key priorities is progressing construction at the Rio Grande LNG facility safely, on budget, and on or ahead of schedule. It regressed significantly during 2025, and as of January 2026, trains 1 and 2 are close to 65% complete, and train 3 is nearly 40% complete. Train 4, which achieved FID in September of 2025, is 7.8% complete, and train 5, which achieved FID in October 2025, is 3.3% complete. Since our last update, train 1 structural steel and equipment installation has become substantially complete. Early electrical commissioning of train one is underway, along with ongoing piping installation and testing, cable pulling, and the installation of main compressors. Additionally, the marine loading and tug bursts are advancing with civil and topside construction, including birth one loading arm installation. Construction activities are also continuing to progress for trains two and three with continued structural steel erection, piping fabrication, rebar installation, and equipment setting. Progress on train four since FID has been focused primarily on engineering drawings and issuing purchase requisitions for key equipment and Bechtel is advancing soil stabilization and foundations in the train 4 area. Progress on train 5 since FID has been focused primarily on issuing purchase requisitions for key equipment and the train 5 area is in early site preparation. Phase 1 continues to track ahead of the guarantee substantial completion dates giving us very strong confidence in our projections of early LNG production volumes. We expect first LNG production from train one in the first half of 2027. I'm incredibly proud of the construction team and the work they have done at the site alongside Bechtel. Our construction team and our operations team will continue to partner closely with Bechtel this year in support of safe construction and a safe, effective, efficient transition to commissioning and operations. The ultimate development goal of the Rio Grande LNG facility is to double our capacity to 60 million tons per annum or 10 liquefaction trains. Toward that end, we're continuing to advance the development and permitting of trains six through eight. Our plan is to design once and build many, and we expect these trains to benefit from utilizing our established trains one through five design and technologies, which we expect will enable us to accelerate the design and construction of our additional expansion capacity at the Rio Grande LNG site. Train six is being developed adjacent to train 5 and inside the existing levee at Rio Grande LNG in an area that is currently being used as an equipment lay down area and on-site concrete batch plant. We initiated the pre-filing process with FERC in November of 2025 for train 6 and a third berth and we expect to file a full application mid this year. We expect the train 6 permitting process to be relatively easy and straightforward because train 6 is identical in design to trains 1 through 5 will be located inside the existing levy and was initially contemplated within our original design footprint at the site. The current administration has shown strong support for natural gas infrastructure, and we believe it is possible we could receive the FERC permit for train 6 as early as mid-2027. We began early discussions with counterparties for train 6. We're seeing strong interest in the market for incremental LNG in the 2030s and beyond, which is the timeline when we estimate train six to be operational, depending on the timing of commercialization, EPC contracting, and financing. We continue to believe the market is underestimating global natural gas demand growth in the 2030s, and that global gas demand growth will continue to be bolstered by fueling economic growth in developing countries, supporting mass industrialization, and feeding growing power demand. Prioritization of energy security around the world also supports global gas demand growth, and natural gas is emerging as the clear winner in power generation for data centers and other AI-driven applications. We also expect recent pressure or near-term LNG prices to be a net positive for the industry, as we predict it will spur additional near-term demand for natural gas in price-sensitive regions, which will create long-term demand as additional natural gas infrastructure is built and utilized. The commercial environment for long-term contracting remains strong and we're seeing indications from many potential counterparties that the world is going to be short gassed in LNG in the early 2030s which puts us in a great position as we seek to commercialize train 6 and later train 7 and 8. We're continuing to evaluate the location of train 7 and 8 on either the east or west side of the Rio Grande LNG facility site. The location that is not used for train 7 and 8 is expected to be used for future trains 9 and 10. We expect to advance the development of trains 7 and 8 this year and maintain a goal of permitting them under the current administration. We currently have full ownership of trains 6 through 8, and we believe these trains could contribute significantly to the future next decade distributable cash flows across a wide range of financing scenarios. Financing options with the goal of maximizing distributable cash flow on a per share basis. Now I'd like to turn over to Mike to discuss our recent financial highlights, an update on early volumes and cash flows, and additional guidance pricing scenarios. Thanks, Matt.

Let's recap our recent financing transactions. At the FIDs of Trains 4 and 5, we fully funded each train, including our equity commitments for those trains. No incremental capital raises are expected to fund Trains 4 and 5 construction, based on current funding sources in place. and the estimated total project costs of approximately $6.7 billion per train, which are unchanged since FID. We funded trains 4 and 5 at their respective FIDs with a mix of approximately 60% debt and 40% equity. We primarily used delayed-draw, senior-secured, non-recourse project finance credit facilities for the debt portion, with approximately $3.8 billion for train 4 and $3.6 billion for TRAIN 5. For TRAIN 5, we also utilize $500 million of senior-secure non-recourse private placement notes that will be issued in tranches through October 2026. As of year-end 2025, $150 million of those notes were issued and outstanding. TRAIN 4 has approximately $2.8 billion in total equity commitments, consisting of about $1.7 billion from our equity partners and $1.1 billion from next decade. We initially hold a 40% economic interest in TRAIN 4, which will increase to 60% once our financial partners receive certain returns on their investments in TRAIN 4. Train 5 has approximately $2.6 billion in total equity commitments, with roughly $1.3 billion contributed by our equity partners and $1.3 billion by next decade. Our initial Train 5 economic interest of 50% will increase to 70% once our financial partners receive certain returns on their investments in Train 5. To fully fund next decade's approximate $2.4 billion in total equity commitments across Trans4 and 5, we entered into approximately $2.7 billion in term loans and utilized over $200 million from cash on hand. The term loans have an attractive all-in expected cost of approximately 9% and provide a bridge to a simplified, optimized capital structure during steady-state operations. The term loans include a $1.2 billion super FINCO term loan and an approximate 1.5 billion FINCO bank facility. The FINCO bank facility provides us with an immense amount of flexibility through instruction with delayed draws and prepayable commitments without penalty. It also has attractive pricing at SOFR plus 350 basis points, which is only 150 basis points above the margin of our train four and five project level credit facilities. Turning to the corporate holding company level, in November, we amended our loan at Rio Grande LNG Super Holdings to provide an incremental $50 million of capital for corporate-level liquidity. This transaction resulted in a $100 million, 8% exchangeable loan due in 2030, with interest payable in cash or in kind at our election. This loan is exchangeable into next-decade common shares at $9.50 per share. The original loan, which was amended to a 13.5% loan due in 2030, was a $175 million initial principal amount before paid in kind interest. We provided our projected LNG production volumes from early cargos expected to be produced from startup of train one in 2027 through the date of first commercial deliveries or DFCD of LNG supply to our long-term SPA customers in Train 5. We continue to have high confidence in these projections based on Bechtel's progress today. During the projection period, we expect to produce and sell a total of approximately 3,800 TBTUs of LNG, including 1,275 TBTUs above the volumes that are contracted to be sold under our long-term LNG SPAs. We expect Bechtel to deliver our trains ahead of the guaranteed substantial completion dates, and the large majority of the estimated uncontracted volume shown here relate to early production after expected substantial completion and ahead of DFCD under the SPAs for each train. As Matt said, Phase 1 continues to track ahead of the guaranteed substantial completion dates, and we expect accelerated progress on trains 4 and 5, as they are identical in design to Phase 1, and will benefit from efficiencies identified and lessons learned during the Phase 1 construction. We are very confident in these production numbers, and as construction continues to progress incredibly well, there is possibility we will have additional volumes to sell above the projections shown here. We have begun and will continue to manage uncontracted LNG production with the goal of reducing our exposure to short-term market prices volatility. Early this year, we began marketing early cargos that we expect to produce, and we are seeing strong appetite for these volumes. Year-to-date, we have sold over 175 TBTU on a free-on-board or FOB basis with fixed liquefaction fees that are expected to achieve a cargo margin calculated as the FOB LNG sales price, less our expected cost of natural gas feedstock and fuels of over $3 per LNG BTU. These sales reduce the phase one uncontracted early LNG production exposed to LNG market price fluctuations by a third. Market margins today remain healthy and above long-term contracting rates.

We are seeing strong demand for our LNG.

Throughout this year and early next year, we expect to sell additional early cargos to further reduce our market exposure as we increase our visibility in expected early LNG production and gain assurance on timing from Vectal. We expect to utilize the cash flows associated with these early volumes to pay down a portion of the Finco and Super Finco loans related to our equity commitments for Trains 4 and 5. At Train 5 FID in October, we showed you that approximately 3,800 TBTU of LNG production projected from 2027 through the first half of 2031, is expected to generate approximately $2 billion in next decade share of Rio Grande LNG project-level distributable cash flow using a $5 per MMBTU cargo margin. We are reiterating that projection today and providing an additional pricing sensitivity at a cargo margin of $3 per MMBTU for these early cargoes. We believe a $3 per MMBTU cargo margin case is conservative. That is roughly equivalent to the value we expect to receive under our long-term Train 4 and Train 5 SPAs, including expected fuel usage and the cost of Rio Grande LNG's gas supply relative to Henry Hub. In the $3 premium BTU cargo margin pricing scenario, we project early LNG production will result in approximately $1.2 billion in next decades share of Rio Grande LNG project level distributable cash flow from train one startup through dfcd of the train five spas in the first half of 2031 we believe there is significant amount of upside potential to these projections from a number of factors unrelated to market pricing some of these factors include potential additional improvements in Rio Grande LNG's construction schedule, the speed at which each train ramps up to full production, and production above nameplate capacity. As we look forward to steady state operations, we are focused not only on ensuring that our trains come online safely, on budget, and on time, or early, but also on reducing the variability in and maximizing our cash flows and ensuring that we employ the capital discipline necessary to position ourselves for long-term success. Being an optimized and strong balance sheet at next decade will be paramount to our long-term success. Our initial leverage target for steady-state operations after DFCD of train 5 is a next-decade-level debt-to-adjusted EBITDA ratio of 3 to 3.5 times. For this metric, next-decade-level debt includes the debt of next decade and its subsidiaries, excluding project level debt. We believe a three to three and a half times debt to adjusted EBITDA is a reasonable leverage target that is supported by our economic interest in the cash flows from trains one through five at Rio Grande LNG. Trains one through five are approximately 85 percent contracted on a long-term basis with SPAs that have a weighted average life of 19 and a half years and annual fixed fee cash flow of approximately three billion dollars before escalation. This profile provides us with strong cash flow visibility and predictability on a steady state basis. We expect this leverage target will place next decade in a strong credit position and we have visible paths to achieving that target at steady state operations. As we showed on the previous slide, you can expect us to utilize our share of cash flows generated from Rio Grande LNG Train 1 startup through Train 5 DSCD to pay down our Finco and Super Finco term balances to reduce next decade level debt. At steady state operations, we expect to refinance any remaining balances via opportunistic capital markets transactions. We currently estimate that if early volumes are sold at average margins consistent with our $5 per MNVTU pricing sensitivity, next decade level debt would be within our target range. If early volumes were sold at average margins consistent with our $3 per MNVTU pricing sensitivity, we would expect to undertake additional balance sheet optimization to reduce next decade level debt to within the target range. In this sensitivity, we would consider contracting an additional approximately 2 million tons under long-term SBAs across trains 4 and 5. Our five-train portfolio to approximately 90% contracted and enable us to maximize debt at the project levels, which would in turn reduce equity requirements for next decade and our equity partners for trains 4 and 5. This would reduce the amount we expect to draw on the FNCO loan to fund our remaining portion of equity for TRANS 4 and 5, thereby reducing projected next decade level debt to within the target range. As we previously discussed, we entered into the SuperFNCO and FNCO loans to fund most of our equity commitment into TRANS 4 and 5. The net proceeds from the SuperFINCO loan were contributed into the projects at their respective FID days. As we consider various options to optimize our balance sheet into steady-state operations, we have flexibility in timing and approach, largely due to the advantageous terms of the FINCO loan, which we expect to use to fund our remaining equity commitments for Trains 4 and 5. We currently do not expect to draw on the FNCO loan for multiple years, during which time we will only pay LC fees, which grants us time to continue to evaluate the market and determine the optimal balance sheet optimization approach while continuing to sell uncontracted early volumes to reduce our near-term market exposure. We are seeing strong opportunities in the market for LNG sales, both short-term and long-term. Near-term pricing today remains above long-term pricing levels. We're reaffirming our existing steady-state guidance and providing an additional margin sensitivity and some market exposure sensitivities to help you better model the company and the potential impact of LNG market price fluctuations on our projected cash flows. We previously provided a $5 per MMBTU cargo margin case at TRAIN 4 FID, which is unchanged and is reiterated in the left columns of this chart. In this scenario, we project annual next-decade distributable cash flow of approximately $800 million after the economic interest flipped in TRAIN 4 and 5, and approximately $500 million before the flip. In the $5 margin scenario, we estimate the economic interest flip will occur in the mid-2030s. Under this scenario, each 50-cent change in cargo margin is projected to impact next-decade distributable cash flow by approximately $60 million post-flip and approximately $45 million pre-flip. We are adding the additional margin scenario today, which contemplates a $3 per MMBTU cargo margin during the early volume period from TRAIN-1 startup through DFCD of the TRAIN-5 SPAs in the first half of 2031. This case assumes a $5 per MMBTU cargo margin during steady-state operations point forward beginning in the second half of 2031. In this scenario, we assume that we would contract an additional approximately 2 million tons under long-term SPAs across Trains 4 and 5. We estimate this scenario would enable us to achieve our steady-state target leverage metrics in a lower early volume margin environment. In this new sensitivity, we project approximately $500 million in next decade distributable cash flow per year after the flip and approximately $400 million from train 5 DSCD in the first half of 2031 until the flip. In this sensitivity, the timing of the flip would be delayed slightly to the mid to late 2030s due to the lower early cargo margins. There is potential upside to the timing of the flip from factors outside of market margins, including accelerated ramp-up timing of the trains and higher production profiles, capital spin curves, contingency usage, and operational efficiency, among other factors. Additionally, our steady state projections include production of 309 TBTU per train per year, which is based on nameplate and does not include impacts from over-design or debottlenecking efforts. As a result, we believe there could be meaningful potential above the scenarios we are showing here. Our projected cash flows are robust across a range of market margin scenarios and are strengthened by our highly contracted approach, which we could lean further into if needed, depending on the LNG pricing environment over the next few years. Thank you for joining the call today. We will now open the lineup for questions.

Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. And for participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. Please limit to one question and one follow-up question. Our first question is from Jason Gableman with TD Cowan. Please proceed.

Morning. Thanks for taking my questions, and thanks for all the detail on the forward guidance. I guess I want to start with the events that happened over the weekend. And, you know, I understand it's still, you know, just a couple days since the operation started over there. But how do you think that's going to influence your competitive position in the marketplace and the ability to attract volumes to support future trains?

Yeah, thanks for the question. And good morning to you. First, let me send my condolences to the families of the U.S. soldiers who've been killed or injured. I'd also like to send my condolences to the civilians who've been killed or injured by the Iranian rocket and drone attacks. The short-term impact of this war is that nearly 20 percent of the global supply of energy will be disrupted, likely causing prices to rise, which I think we've already seen this morning. The longer-term impact of the world depends on how long it lasts and the extent of the damage, any damage to energy infrastructure in the region. And, you know, we've all heard the rumors that Ross Lafon was attacked by drones. We haven't gotten that confirmed yet. As we said in our comments, the market is already, among all things considered, time that we're focused on for train six through eight, which is kind of the 20, 32, 33, and beyond timeframe. Situation that we've seen develop over the weekend reaffirms what we've said about our guidance between 26 and 2030 as new LNG is coming to the market. We still have the slide in our deck about this wave and the fact that from an amplitude perspective, it is definitely not the same as we've seen in the past and that any relatively small disruption could balance the market rather quickly. And of course, when you lose 20% of the supply of LNG into the market, most of that going into Asia, it's going to have major ramifications, especially in the short term. How long that lasts is to be seen.

Got it. Great. Thanks for that. I want to follow up just on the potential for early volumes above what you've guided. You know, it seems like construction is tracking better than what you've contemplated in the plan, but you didn't raise your volume guidance for volumes that will come on prior to the middle of 2031. So as things sit today, just what is kind of the upside you're looking at from early volumes, particularly from train one, which seems like it's going to come on a bit earlier than what you expected?

Yeah, what we've said is that as this year progresses and we get more assurances from Bechtel, we will update the market as to those early volumes, especially when train one is going to start, how much more volume we may be able to produce out of those trains relative to the guidance we've already given between train one startup and train five DSCD. Longer term, the ability to get more volume out of the trains due to the hydraulic capacity, potential de-ballnecking. We're not really prepared to get into that until we operate the facility for a while. I think, you know, we have a more conservative approach to this. Clearly, when these facilities are designed and built, they're built with more hydraulic capacity than what we permit. But you don't really know exactly how much of that you can utilize until you start operating because you have to contend with several dynamic things, including the specification of the gas, the ambient temperature, et cetera. So, I feel pretty comfortable that, you know, next year as we begin operating train one, we'll get a better feeling about how much capacity each of these trains, they're all exactly the same, how much they could potentially produce. So, next year, I would expect us to be able to provide the market with additional guidance on how much more volume we could produce in steady state.

Thank you for the question.

As a reminder, it is star one on your telephone keypad if you would like to ask a question. Our next question is from Sunil Sabal with Seaport Global Securities. Please proceed.

Yeah, hi. Good morning, and thanks for all the new information on the slide deck. I was kind of curious, you know, it seems like, you know, your decision in terms of, you know, contracting more capacity on trains 4 and 5 is largely driven by the early volume margins, right? So obviously, with the events we've seen in the last few hours, it seems like the spreads are moving up. So I was kind of curious if you could talk about your decision point in light of recent developments and see from a time frame perspective, when do you think you will have a better sense of that contracting decision?

Yeah, thank you for the question. contracting a higher percentage of trains four and five is an option that we will consider as we continue to monitor the market what we said is in a lower margin early volume scenario we estimate the contracting of additional capacity in trains four and five would enable us to maximize the debt at the project level and reduce equity requirements for trains four and five which in turn would reduce the amount we expect to draw on the thin co loan for our trains four and five of equity and help us achieve a target corporate level leverage of three to three and a half times adjusted even dot at the same time as you point out we see continued strength in the market and obviously you know with the uh this past weekend additional strength in the short-term market um and so that call on lng um it is still there in the short term and as we said into the 2030s. So we want to remain flexible. And the determination as to when we decide to contract will be based largely on how things go over the course of the next year or two. We have plenty of time to do this. We are planning to draw on the FNCO loan for train one for at least two and a half years or so. And so it really doesn't do us much good to do anything early.

We want to play this option out um it has a a trigger date that's that's many many many many months in the future and so we'll we'll see what happens between now and then matt if i could just add we talked about where our focus is and clearly uh progressing train six through eight is a major focus of ours um our focus will be on commercializing train six um in the immediate future we estimate train six can be very creative and generate a great deal of additional distributable cash flow on a per share basis in a wide range of financing scenarios. So as Matt said, it's a balancing act. We have lots of options. It's always good to have options. In this scenario, I think we've set ourselves up to enable ourselves to work the commercial side of the business while maintaining that focus on our capital structure and a strong balance sheet that we need as we move forward into the 2030s.

Yeah, one other thing I'll add, Mike, and thanks for adding that, is that in the scenario where we assume we've sold an additional 2 million tons between train 4 and 5, we're also using current long-term LNG pricing consistent with our train 4 and 5 pricing. Two and a half plus years into the future, pricing could be much stronger depending on what happens in the market. So, again, we're trying to be transparent, provide the market with additional information on potential scenarios, but at the same time remaining conservative on our estimates, even when it comes to long-term LNG contracting in the future.

Okay. So just one clarification. So are you suggesting that the 2MTP additional contracting is also primarily driven with an eye on overall balance sheet and leverage, especially when you think about drain 6 to 8? much to do with train six through eight.

It has to do with a certain amount of leverage that we feel would be appropriate at the next decade level in order to maintain flexibility at next decade and provide us the underpinnings of a stable foundation to survive any sort of commodity cycle up or down. The important thing here to note is that we don't have to do anything for that train four and five excess cargos, excuse me, incremental long-term cargos until probably two and a half years into the future. If prices scream up and there's plenty of demand for a train six and an incremental million tons from train four and five, we'll consider that opportunistically. But to your earlier point, this does potentially lower the amount of cash flow that we can generate because we're contracting 2 million more tons at a lower price than that $5 steady state long-term market view. But at the same time, if we do do it, it provides guaranteed cash flows for another 2 million tons, thereby decreasing our market exposure. My expectation is that if we did do this in the future, we should get a higher multiple for that contracted cash flow. If we don't do it, it's because the market has remained very strong and the value of that volume uncontracted, at least during this period of time, has increased in value and we want to hold on to it a little bit longer. I said before, we aren't planning to just hold this stuff forever we will opportunistically contract it out most likely if we don't do a 20-year contract in the future under shorter term contracts where we will we can achieve greater margins than a 20-year contract we're just pointing out for our shareholders that we're thinking about this completely and that if this market you know is in the shorter term, a lower margin market, and we don't get the full $2 billion of cash that we expect to get from train one startup to train five DFCD, we have options to ensure that our balance sheet states stay strong that are unrelated to commodity pricing. The last thing I'll mention and reiterate is that there are other upsides for us other than commodity pricing. We could produce a lot more volume in this early period, generating additional cash flow subject to where the margins end up. We can also end up filling the project at a lower cost, in other words, not utilize all of our contingency. And clearly, as we mentioned earlier, there is the potential for us, even in a steady state environment, producing more volume out of these trains due to the hydraulic capacity versus nameplate.

Okay. Thanks for that comprehensive answer. My second question was related to the contracting environment. Obviously, you finalized between five contracts in fourth quarter. How would you characterize the market currently versus when you finalized the between five contracts? in terms of SBA, you know, pricing?

Yeah, look, we've been in the market talking to potential customers for Train 6, and we're seeing continued strong demand for incremental LNG supply in the 2030s and beyond. And while there's been this debate recently about the short-term market dynamics, which obviously somewhat changed over the weekend, market participants that we've talked to are almost unanimous in their view that the world needs more LNG in the 2030s, driven by continued growth in global natural gas demand and expected declines in production from legacy gas and LNG. The long-term contracting market remains robust, and we expect prices for train six in the same range, if not better, and then train five. Really, really good right now.

Understood. Thank you.

Our next question is from Wade Suckey with Capital One. Please proceed.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for taking my questions. So just real quickly, if you don't mind, looking at some of the sensitivities here, the three and the five steady state, I'm wondering if you can kind of give us a sense if we were in a $3 flat environment, so three and three essentially, $3 steady state in terms of maybe sensitivities, kind of DCF sensitivities, and then, you know, free and post-flip timing kind of thing for trades forward.

We didn't provide a three-in-three case, clearly, and that's because we think it's somewhat illogical to assume that the long-term price over 20 years is going to be effectively equivalent to the long-term price for a 20-year contract. When you think about it, I know that there are other companies that may be using something closer to $3 for their long-term guidance range. And I'm not saying that we don't look at that from a standpoint of sanctioning projects, but the reality is customers that are buying this from us long-term at prices that are effectively equivalent to that, and they're selling it at positive margins. We didn't provide that guidance. I don't expect to provide the guidance. That said, we knew it was important for you to see sensitivities around this. So, if you want to do a hypothetical, I think we've provided the sensitivity on a 50 cent per MMBTU basis impact from the $3, $5 case. I think that, Megan, you can check me on this, but I think that if you multiply the sensitivity in the three to five dollar case on the pre-flip and post-flip basis, you generally get an idea of what a three and three would look like. So you'd have to multiply it by four, like 80 million dollars, I believe, in one of the cases. But, you know, it's not an exact science.

No, no, understood. I appreciate the color. That is great. But just thinking in terms of like corporate-level return, let's call it, in the three and five scenario. How do you all think about unlovered return, return on capital, however you're thinking about corporate-level return?

Look at the returns on the project level. They're very, very robust, especially train four and five, but combined trains one through five have resulted in extremely good returns for us and our partners. We haven't disclosed the actual metrics in that, but I can assure you that trains four and five were probably some of the best returns in the industry last year. And that's based on our cost structure, as well as the prices that we sold the long-term LNG for. We would expect train six, dependent on ultimate EPC costs, financing costs, and where we end up selling the LNG to have similar types of returns, which would be extremely accretive to our shareholders under various ranges of how we would finance it.

Great.

Thank you. I guess one last one if I could squeeze that in. If I'm hearing you on the financing of the SuperFibco loans, ultimately, could that look different in two, three years' time when you actually start drawing on that? I understood the question, Wade. What do you mean? I'm just thinking about how you're financing equity portions for trains four and five, I'm just wondering if the ultimate financing might look, could look materially different than what is out there kind of today with the, I guess, 12, 13.

I think what we've said is that, yeah, what we've said is that because of the low cost structure of the Finco, include that with the super Finco and how we would expect to draw on that debt. yes, the expected cost of that capital probably weights out to about 9%. If we get into a low commodity price environment and we decide to exercise our option and sell more LNG in train four and five, thereby maximizing the debt at four and five and reducing the equity commitments, that would have a direct impact on all. We wouldn't draw all of it or potentially any of it, which theoretically increases the cost of the loans that we took on, but it would also have the amount of equity that we'd have to provide. You end up probably in a better place, theoretically, from a cost perspective, but it's how you value the cost of that equity, I guess. So there are some scenarios here, but I think the way the market should look at it right now is that we're not really changing our guidance we're not expecting that we're going to go into that we're going to sell more lng out of train four and five as an option for us we'll determine whether or not we're going to do that over the coming years i would still focus on you know the nine percent cost and expect that we're going to draw down that that finco debt over the course of the next you know several years as we build out train four and five thank you again appreciate it thank you our next question is from Craig Scherer with Tuohy Brothers.

Please proceed.

So just kind of some macro thoughts and implications on your T6 to T8 development. There's been a lot of expectations that the USFID parade may be largely coming to a halt over the next, I don't know, two, three-plus quarters or so, with some exceptions. If that happened and EPC costs notably fell over the next, you know, five-plus years, do you see that providing a meaningful tailwind for train 6 to 8 development? And kind of feeding into that, I guess, as competition ultimately heats up in a larger market, do you see Greenfield just at some point being permanently priced out of the market?

Thanks for the question, Greg. First, I think we already have very strong tailwinds for train six and seven and eight. But I think what you're alluding to is the fact that train six and really to some extent, seven and eight, six is definitely brownfield. It is inside the levee. It was contemplated to originally be there. The only thing we're doing incrementally that we weren't planning to do was adding another berth, which is only going to help add flexibility to all the trains. this should be the lowest cost train that is going to be built i think in the united states under an epc contract that would be guaranteed you know a lot of folks build their lng facilities differently and don't necessarily have them wrap we think at the end of the day wrapping the epc is the most cost effective way of building in i think our our current track record and how construction is going and how we're tracking as far as cost reflects that. EPC costs come down. Obviously, that would be very, very beneficial, not just to us, but to other projects. I don't foresee that right now. I don't see the cost of equipment coming down. I don't see labor costs decreasing at this time. As we've said in the past, a lot of the equipment that is utilized for LNG, Some of it's also very common with the power generation business. The turbines used for compression, e-houses, formers, et cetera, and the like, are not decreasing right now. There's still a lot of demand for these. So I think that we're in a really good position competitively, especially for train six and also for seven and eight. because of the brownfield nature it's going to be very very competitive as i said earlier with one of the questions result in what we believe are outstanding returns i think it's a lot of the tailwinds are already there if prices come down that would be great for us that probably benefit our competitors as well but i hear you on the greenfield greenfield is very hard to get off the ground if you don't have a lot of expansion capacity i think it's going to to be very challenging for you to achieve returns. They're going to be interesting for equity investors, as you probably will see with some of the projects that are hoping to get that idea. That's not to say they won't. I think the smaller you are and the less upside options you have as far as expanding, the more challenging it's going to be for you.

Thanks for that. And the dislocations in the market, obviously, from this weekend's events, no one knows what will happen with war. Uh, what, you know, hopefully there'll be fewer lives lost. Hopefully, uh, everything will come to a swift conclusion. Uh, but we don't know if major equipment will be impacted. We don't know how long things will be down. We don't know what construction schedules on new capacity will be impacted. And, uh, so, so in light of that, if you're, you know, you don't have, you know, immediately available production to sell in the market today. But at what point, as Train 1 starts, you know, commissioning, do you feel comfortable, you know, seizing the day if you have some outsized opportunities?

Yeah, as we – and I'll let Mike chime in here. As we've already disclosed, we have seized the day to some extent by selling a portion of the projected early cargo volumes from train one startup to train five dfcd clearly we haven't sold the majority of it yet and as we've guided to and you've mentioned many times uh before in some of your previous questions on other calls there's a lot of potential upside here if we deliver the project even earlier than we currently projected which is not out of the question um we'll guide more to that later this year those are the catalysts i think people should be focused on you know we will be starting commissioning this year we will start introducing hydrocarbons a facility and start the warm side facility we expect to start producing lng next year um and and as we get closer we'll give the exact dates as we get more and more confident and we get more assurances from bechtel um you know should lng prices remain strong or get stronger uh in 27 28 29 um rest assured that that we will we will start to pair more of this volume down and again uh we could end up with producing a lot more than expected so um that uh that that could work to our benefit and and And obviously, all these things have an impact on whether or not we utilize the options available to us to maintain the strong balance sheet, including the additional contracting that we could do in train four and five, which again, we are not saying today you should expect that to happen. We're explaining that that's an option to us, but we're going to maintain that optionality because the strike date on that is many, many months, if not years, in the future. And we want to see how things play out. I'll reiterate what I said earlier, and I would, again, focus people on the slide in our deck that shows that this wave is different. Yes, prices softened pretty dramatically over the past quarter into the 26 to 30 timeframe. But as we said, it doesn't take much to balance this market. This is not as big a wave as people think because the underlying market has grown dramatically. And a supply disruption of the magnitude that we're now seeing is not what I was talking about. I was talking about 10 to 15 million tons, not 20% of the existing market. How long this situation lasts will be critical in determining what impact it's going to have on pricing long term. Much of this LNG goes to our customers in Asia. A lot of U.S. LNG, as you know, has made its way to Europe. If the supply chain for LNG changes dramatically and more LNG from the U.S. has to go to Asia, that will tighten the shipping market. And that will obviously have ramifications on pricing in Europe, which I think we've already seen a pretty substantial spike in the short term there today.

Great. Thank you.

There are no more further questions at this time. That will conclude our call today. Thank you for joining, and thank you for your interest in next decade.