Attached files

file filename
EX-32.2 - EXHIBIT 32.2 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit322cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-32.1 - EXHIBIT 32.1 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit321cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-31.2 - EXHIBIT 31.2 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit312cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-31.1 - EXHIBIT 31.1 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit311cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-23.1 - EXHIBIT 23.1 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit231cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-21.1 - EXHIBIT 21.1 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit211cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-10.41 - EXHIBIT 10.41 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit1041cqp2017form10-k.htm
EX-10.20 - EXHIBIT 10.20 - Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.exhibit1020cqp2017form10-k.htm


 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
OR
¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from            to            
Commission File No. 001-33366
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Delaware
20-5913059
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
 
700 Milam Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas
77002
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (713) 375-5000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Units Representing Limited Partner Interests
NYSE American
(Title of Class)
(Name of each exchange on which registered)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes x    No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.    Yes o    No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes x    No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes x   No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer  x
Accelerated filer                     o 
Non-accelerated filer    o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company    o 
 
Emerging growth company    o
 
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes ¨    No x
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common units held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $1.5 billion as of June 30, 2017.
The registrant had 348,619,292 common units and 135,383,831 subordinated units outstanding as of February 15, 2018.
Documents incorporated by reference: None
 
 
 
 
 



CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
TABLE OF CONTENTS





i




DEFINITIONS
As used in this annual report, the terms listed below have the following meanings: 

Common Industry and Other Terms
Bcf
 
billion cubic feet
Bcf/d
 
billion cubic feet per day
Bcf/yr
 
billion cubic feet per year
Bcfe
 
billion cubic feet equivalent
DOE
 
U.S. Department of Energy
EPC
 
engineering, procurement and construction
FERC
 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FTA countries
 
countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement providing for national treatment for trade in natural gas
GAAP
 
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States
Henry Hub
 
the final settlement price (in USD per MMBtu) for the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Henry Hub natural gas futures contract for the month in which a relevant cargo’s delivery window is scheduled to begin
LIBOR
 
London Interbank Offered Rate
LNG
 
liquefied natural gas, a product of natural gas that, through a refrigeration process, has been cooled to a liquid state, which occupies a volume that is approximately 1/600th of its gaseous state
MMBtu
 
million British thermal units, an energy unit
mtpa
 
million tonnes per annum
non-FTA countries
 
countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement providing for national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is permitted
SEC
 
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
SPA
 
LNG sale and purchase agreement
TBtu
 
trillion British thermal units, an energy unit
Train
 
an industrial facility comprised of a series of refrigerant compressor loops used to cool natural gas into LNG
TUA
 
terminal use agreement



ii




Abbreviated Legal Entity Structure

The following diagram depicts our abbreviated legal entity structure as of December 31, 2017, including our ownership of certain subsidiaries, and the references to these entities used in this annual report:
cqpa15.jpg
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “Cheniere Partners,” “the Partnership,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including SPLNG, SPL and CTPL

References to “Blackstone Group” refer to The Blackstone Group, L.P. References to “Blackstone CQP Holdco” refer to Blackstone CQP Holdco LP. References to “Blackstone” refer to Blackstone Group and Blackstone CQP Holdco.

iii


CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS


This annual report contains certain statements that are, or may be deemed to be, “forward-looking statements.” All statements, other than statements of historical or present facts or conditions, included herein or incorporated herein by reference are “forward-looking statements.” Included among “forward-looking statements” are, among other things:
statements regarding our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders; 
statements regarding our expected receipt of cash distributions from SPLNG, SPL or CTPL; 
statements that we expect to commence or complete construction of our proposed LNG terminals, liquefaction facilities, pipeline facilities or other projects, or any expansions or portions thereof, by certain dates, or at all;
statements regarding future levels of domestic and international natural gas production, supply or consumption or future levels of LNG imports into or exports from North America and other countries worldwide or purchases of natural gas, regardless of the source of such information, or the transportation or other infrastructure or demand for and prices related to natural gas, LNG or other hydrocarbon products;
statements regarding any financing transactions or arrangements, or our ability to enter into such transactions;
statements relating to the construction of our Trains, including statements concerning the engagement of any EPC contractor or other contractor and the anticipated terms and provisions of any agreement with any such EPC or other contractor, and anticipated costs related thereto;
statements regarding any SPA or other agreement to be entered into or performed substantially in the future, including any revenues anticipated to be received and the anticipated timing thereof, and statements regarding the amounts of total LNG regasification, natural gas liquefaction or storage capacities that are, or may become, subject to contracts;
statements regarding our planned development and construction of additional Trains, including the financing of such Trains;
statements that our Trains, when completed, will have certain characteristics, including amounts of liquefaction capacities;
statements regarding our business strategy, our strengths, our business and operation plans or any other plans, forecasts, projections, or objectives, including anticipated revenues, capital expenditures, maintenance and operating costs and cash flows, any or all of which are subject to change;
statements regarding legislative, governmental, regulatory, administrative or other public body actions, approvals, requirements, permits, applications, filings, investigations, proceedings or decisions;
statements regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; and
any other statements that relate to non-historical or future information.
All of these types of statements, other than statements of historical or present facts or conditions, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “project,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “pursue,” “target,” “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. The forward-looking statements contained in this annual report are largely based on our expectations, which reflect estimates and assumptions made by our management. These estimates and assumptions reflect our best judgment based on currently known market conditions and other factors. Although we believe that such estimates are reasonable, they are inherently uncertain and involve a number of risks and uncertainties beyond our control. In addition, assumptions may prove to be inaccurate. We caution that the forward-looking statements contained in this annual report are not guarantees of future performance and that such statements may not be realized or the forward-looking statements or events may not occur. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated or implied in forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors described in this annual report and in the other reports and other information that we file with the SEC. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made, and other than as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement or provide reasons why actual results may differ, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.



iv



PART I

ITEMS 1. AND 2.
BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES

General

We are a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed by Cheniere in 2006. Our vision is to provide clean, secure and affordable energy to the world, while responsibly delivering a reliable, competitive and integrated source of LNG, in a safe and rewarding work environment. The liquefaction of natural gas into LNG allows it to be shipped economically from areas of the world where natural gas is abundant and inexpensive to produce to other areas where natural gas demand and infrastructure exist to economically justify the use of LNG. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, SPL, we are developing, constructing and operating natural gas liquefaction facilities (the “Liquefaction Project”) at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, on the Sabine-Neches Waterway less than four miles from the Gulf Coast. We plan to construct up to six Trains, which are in various stages of development, construction and operations. Trains 1 through 4 are operational, Train 5 is under construction and Train 6 is being commercialized and has all necessary regulatory approvals in place. Each Train is expected to have a nominal production capacity, which is prior to adjusting for planned maintenance, production reliability and potential overdesign, of approximately 4.5 mtpa of LNG and an adjusted nominal production capacity of approximately 4.3 to 4.6 mtpa of LNG. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, SPLNG, we own and operate regasification facilities at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, which includes pre-existing infrastructure of five LNG storage tanks with aggregate capacity of approximately 16.9 Bcfe, two marine berths that can each accommodate vessels with nominal capacity of up to 266,000 cubic meters and vaporizers with regasification capacity of approximately 4.0 Bcf/d. We also own a 94-mile pipeline that interconnects the Sabine Pass LNG terminal with a number of large interstate pipelines (the “Creole Trail Pipeline”) through our wholly owned subsidiary, CTPL.

The following diagram depicts our abbreviated capital structure as of December 31, 2017:
cqpcap.jpg


1



Our Business Strategy 

Our primary business strategy is to develop, construct and operate assets supported by long-term, fixed fee contracts. We plan to implement our strategy by:
achieving the date of first commercial delivery for our SPA customers;
safely, efficiently and reliably maintaining and operating our assets, including our Trains;
completing construction and commencing operation of Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project;
making LNG available to our long-term SPA customers to generate steady and reliable revenues and operating cash flows;
obtaining the requisite long-term commercial contracts and financing to reach a final investment decision (“FID”) regarding Train 6 of the Liquefaction Project;
further expanding and optimizing the Liquefaction Project by leveraging existing infrastructure; and
expanding our existing asset base through acquisitions from Cheniere or third parties or our own development of the Liquefaction Project or complementary businesses or assets such as other LNG facilities, midstream assets, natural gas storage assets and natural gas pipelines.

Our Business

Liquefaction Facilities

We are developing, constructing and operating the Liquefaction Project at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal adjacent to the existing regasification facilities. We have received authorization from the FERC to site, construct and operate Trains 1 through 6. We have achieved substantial completion of Trains 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Liquefaction Project and commenced operating activities in May 2016, September 2016, March 2017 and October 2017, respectively. The following table summarizes the status of Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project as of December 31, 2017:
 
Train 5
Overall project completion percentage
83.1%
Completion percentage of:
 
Engineering
100%
Procurement
100%
Subcontract work
63.4%
Construction
62.1%
Date of expected substantial completion
1H 2019
 
 
 
The following orders have been issued by the DOE authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal:
Trains 1 through 4—FTA countries for a 30-year term, which commenced on May 15, 2016, and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term, which commenced on June 3, 2016, in an amount up to a combined total of the equivalent of 16 mtpa (approximately 803 Bcf/yr of natural gas).
Trains 1 through 4—FTA countries for a 25-year term and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term in an amount up to a combined total of the equivalent of approximately 203 Bcf/yr of natural gas (approximately 4 mtpa).
Trains 5 and 6—FTA countries and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term, in an amount up to a combined total of 503.3 Bcf/yr of natural gas (approximately 10 mtpa).

In each case, the terms of these authorizations begin on the earlier of the date of first export thereunder or the date specified in the particular order, which ranges from five to 10 years from the date the order was issued. In addition, SPL received an order providing for a three-year makeup period with respect to each of the non-FTA orders for LNG volumes SPL was authorized but unable to export during any portion of the initial 20-year export period of such order.

In January 2018, the DOE issued orders authorizing SPL to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal to FTA countries and non-FTA countries over a two-year period commencing January 2018, in an aggregate

2



amount up to the equivalent of 600 Bcf of natural gas (however, exports under this order, when combined with exports under the orders above, may not exceed 1,511 Bcf/yr).

Customers

SPL has entered into six fixed price SPAs with terms of at least 20 years (plus extension rights) with third parties to make available an aggregate amount of LNG that is between approximately 80% to 95% of the expected aggregate adjusted nominal production capacity of Trains 1 through 5. Under these SPAs, the customers will purchase LNG from SPL for a price consisting of a fixed fee per MMBtu of LNG (a portion of which is subject to annual adjustment for inflation) plus a variable fee per MMBtu of LNG equal to approximately 115% of Henry Hub. In certain circumstances, the customers may elect to cancel or suspend deliveries of LNG cargoes, in which case the customers would still be required to pay the fixed fee with respect to the contracted volumes that are not delivered as a result of such cancellation or suspension. We refer to the fee component that is applicable regardless of a cancellation or suspension of LNG cargo deliveries under the SPAs as the fixed fee component of the price under SPL’s SPAs. We refer to the fee component that is applicable only in connection with LNG cargo deliveries as the variable fee component of the price under SPL’s SPAs. The variable fees under SPL’s SPAs were sized at the time of entry into each SPA with the intent to cover the costs of gas purchases and transportation related to, and operating and maintenance costs to produce, the LNG to be sold under each such SPA. The SPAs and contracted volumes to be made available under the SPAs are not tied to a specific Train; however, the term of each SPA generally commences upon the date of first commercial delivery of a specified Train. Under SPL’s SPA with BG Gulf Coast LNG, LLC (“BG”), BG has contracted for volumes related to Trains 3 and 4 for which the obligation to make LNG available to BG is expected to commence approximately one year after the date of first commercial delivery for the respective Train.

In aggregate, the annual fixed fee portion to be paid by the third-party SPA customers is approximately $1.6 billion for Trains 1 through 3, increasing to $2.3 billion upon the date of first commercial delivery of Train 4 and to $2.9 billion upon the date of first commercial delivery of Train 5, with the applicable fixed fees starting from the date of first commercial delivery from the applicable Train, as specified in each SPA.

The annual contracted cash flows from fixed fees of each buyer of LNG under SPL’s third-party SPAs that constitute more than 10% of SPL’s aggregate fixed fees under all its SPAs are:
approximately $720 million from BG, which is guaranteed by BG Energy Holdings Limited;
approximately $550 million from Korea Gas Corporation (“KOGAS”);
approximately $550 million from GAIL (India) Limited; and
approximately $450 million from Gas Natural Fenosa LNG GOM, Limited (“Gas Natural Fenosa”), which is guaranteed by Gas Natural SDG S.A.

SPL also has SPAs with Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (“Total”), which is guaranteed by Total S.A., and Centrica plc with annual aggregate fixed fees of approximately $590 million. In addition, Cheniere Marketing has entered into an SPA with SPL to purchase, at Cheniere Marketing’s option, any LNG produced by SPL in excess of that required for other customers.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, revenues from external customers that were derived from domestic customers was $1.4 billion and from customers outside of the United States was $1.5 billion, of which $787 million and $666 million were from customers in Ireland and South Korea, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2016, revenues from external customers that were derived from domestic customers was $677 million and from customers outside of the United States was $125 million. We attribute revenues from external customers to the country in which the party to the applicable agreement has its principal place of business. Substantially all of our long-lived assets are located in the United States.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, three customers, BG, Gas Natural Fenosa and KOGAS, individually accounted for more than 10% of our total third-party revenues at 39%, 27% and 23%, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2016, one customer, BG, individually accounted for more than 10% of our total third-party revenues at 52%.

Natural Gas Transportation, Storage and Supply

To ensure SPL is able to transport adequate natural gas feedstock to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, it has entered into transportation precedent and other agreements to secure firm pipeline transportation capacity with CTPL and third-party pipeline

3



companies. SPL has entered into firm storage services agreements with third parties to assist in managing volatility in natural gas needs for the Liquefaction Project. SPL has also entered into enabling agreements and long-term natural gas supply contracts with third parties in order to secure natural gas feedstock for the Liquefaction Project. As of December 31, 2017, SPL has secured up to approximately 2,214 TBtu of natural gas feedstock through long-term and short-term natural gas supply contracts.

Construction

SPL entered into lump sum turnkey contracts with Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc. (“Bechtel”) for the engineering, procurement and construction of Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project, under which Bechtel charges a lump sum for all work performed and generally bears project cost risk unless certain specified events occur, in which case Bechtel may cause SPL to enter into a change order, or SPL agrees with Bechtel to a change order.

The total contract price of the EPC contract for Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project is approximately $3.1 billion reflecting amounts incurred under change orders through December 31, 2017. Total expected capital costs for Trains 1 through 5 are estimated to be between $12.5 billion and $13.5 billion before financing costs and between $17.5 billion and $18.5 billion after financing costs, including, in each case, estimated owner’s costs and contingencies.

Final Investment Decision on Train 6

We will contemplate making an FID to commence construction of Train 6 of the Liquefaction Project based upon, among other things, entering into an EPC contract, entering into acceptable commercial arrangements and obtaining adequate financing to construct Train 6.

Regasification Facilities

The Sabine Pass LNG terminal has operational regasification capacity of approximately 4.0 Bcf/d and aggregate LNG storage capacity of approximately 16.9 Bcfe. Approximately 2.0 Bcf/d of the regasification capacity at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal has been reserved under two long-term third-party TUAs, under which SPLNG’s customers are required to pay fixed monthly fees, whether or not they use the LNG terminal.  Each of Total and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) has reserved approximately 1.0 Bcf/d of regasification capacity and is obligated to make monthly capacity payments to SPLNG aggregating approximately $125 million annually for 20 years that commenced in 2009. Total S.A. has guaranteed Total’s obligations under its TUA up to $2.5 billion, subject to certain exceptions, and Chevron Corporation has guaranteed Chevron’s obligations under its TUA up to 80% of the fees payable by Chevron.

The remaining approximately 2.0 Bcf/d of capacity has been reserved under a TUA by SPL. SPL is obligated to make monthly capacity payments to SPLNG aggregating approximately $250 million annually, continuing until at least 20 years after May 2016. SPL entered into a partial TUA assignment agreement with Total, whereby upon substantial completion of Train 3, SPL gained access to a portion of Total’s capacity and other services provided under Total’s TUA with SPLNG.  This agreement provides SPL with additional berthing and storage capacity at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal that may be used to provide increased flexibility in managing LNG cargo loading and unloading activity, permit SPL to more flexibly manage its LNG storage capacity and accommodate the development of Trains 5 and 6. Notwithstanding any arrangements between Total and SPL, payments required to be made by Total to SPLNG will continue to be made by Total to SPLNG in accordance with its TUA. During the year ended December 31, 2017, SPL recorded $23 million as operating and maintenance expense under this partial TUA assignment agreement.

Under each of these TUAs, SPLNG is entitled to retain 2% of the LNG delivered to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal.

Governmental Regulation
 
The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state and local statutes, rules, regulations and laws. These laws require that we engage in consultations with appropriate federal and state agencies and that we obtain and maintain applicable permits and other authorizations. This regulatory requirement increases the cost of construction and operation, and failure to comply with such laws could result in substantial penalties and/or loss of necessary authorizations.


4



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 
The design, construction and operation of our liquefaction facilities, the export of LNG and the transportation of natural gas through the Creole Trail Pipeline are highly regulated activities. Under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, as amended (“NGA”), the FERC’s jurisdiction generally extends to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial or any other use and to natural gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale. However, the FERC’s jurisdiction does not extend to the production, gathering, local distribution or export of natural gas.

 In general, the FERC’s authority to regulate interstate natural gas pipelines and the services that they provide includes:

rates and charges, and terms and conditions for natural gas transportation and related services;
the certification and construction of new facilities;
the extension and abandonment of services and facilities;
the maintenance of accounts and records;
the acquisition and disposition of facilities;
the initiation and discontinuation of services; and
various other matters.

In addition, under the NGA, our pipelines are not permitted to unduly discriminate or grant undue preference as to rates or the terms and conditions of service to any shipper, including its own marketing affiliate. The FERC has the authority to grant certificates allowing construction and operation of facilities used in interstate gas transportation and authorizing the provision of services.

In order to site, construct and operate the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, we received and are required to maintain authorizations from the FERC under Section 3 of the NGA as well as several other material governmental and regulatory approvals and permits. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the “EPAct”) amended Section 3 of the NGA to establish or clarify the FERC’s exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion or operation of LNG terminals, although except as specifically provided in the EPAct, nothing in the EPAct is intended to affect otherwise applicable law related to any other federal or state agency’s authorities or responsibilities related to LNG terminals. The FERC issued final orders in April and July 2012 approving our application for an order under Section 3 of the NGA authorizing the siting, construction and operation of Trains 1 through 4 of the Liquefaction Project (and related facilities). Subsequently, the FERC issued written approval to commence site preparation work for Trains 1 through 4. In October 2012, we applied to amend the FERC approval to reflect certain modifications to the Liquefaction Project, and in August 2013, the FERC issued an order approving the modifications. In October 2013, we applied to further amend the FERC approval, requesting authorization to increase the total permitted LNG production capacity of Trains 1 through 4 from the then authorized 803 Bcf/yr to 1,006 Bcf/yr so as to more accurately reflect the estimated maximum LNG production capacity of Trains 1 through 4. In February 2014, the FERC issued an order approving the October 2013 application (the “February 2014 Order”). A party to the proceeding requested a rehearing of the February 2014 Order, and in September 2014, the FERC issued an order denying the rehearing request (the “FERC Order Denying Rehearing”). The party petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the February 2014 Order and the FERC Order Denying Rehearing. The court denied the petition in June 2016. In September 2013, we filed an application with the FERC for authorization to add Trains 5 and 6 to the Liquefaction Project, which was granted by the FERC in an order issued in April 2015 and an order denying rehearing issued in June 2015. These orders are not subject to appellate court review.

In 2002, the FERC concluded that it would apply light-handed regulation over the rates, terms and conditions agreed to by parties for LNG terminalling services, such that LNG terminal owners would not be required to provide open-access service at non-discriminatory rates or maintain a tariff or rate schedule on file with the FERC, as distinguished from the requirements applied to our FERC-regulated natural gas pipelines. The EPAct codified the FERC’s policy, but those provisions expired on January 1, 2015. Nonetheless, we see no indication that the FERC intends to modify its longstanding policy of light-handed regulation of LNG terminals.

In order to construct, own, operate and maintain the Creole Trail Pipeline, CTPL received a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the FERC under Section 7 of the NGA. The FERC’s approval under Section 7 of the NGA, as well as several

5



other material governmental and regulatory approvals and permits, may be required prior to making any modifications to the Creole Trail Pipeline as it is a regulated, interstate natural gas pipeline. In 2013, the FERC also approved CTPL’s application for authorization to construct, own, operate and maintain certain new facilities in order to enable bi-directional natural gas flow on the Creole Trail Pipeline system to allow for the delivery of up to 1,530,000 dekatherms per day (“Dthd”) of feed gas to the Liquefaction Project. In November 2013, CTPL received approval from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) for the proposed modifications and, with subsequent final FERC clearance, construction was completed in 2015. In September 2013, we filed an application with the FERC for authorization to construct and operate an extension and expansion of the Creole Trail Pipeline and related facilities in order to deliver additional domestic natural gas supplies to the Liquefaction Project, which was granted by the FERC in an order issued in April 2015 and an order denying rehearing issued in June 2015. These orders are not subject to appellate court review.

The FERC’s Standards of Conduct apply to interstate pipelines that conduct transmission transactions with an affiliate that engages in marketing functions. Interstate pipelines must treat all transmission customers on a not unduly discriminatory basis. The general principles of the Standards of Conduct are: (1) independent functioning, which requires transmission function employees to function independently of marketing function employees; (2) no-conduit rule, which prohibits passing transmission function information to marketing function employees; and (3) transparency, which imposes posting requirements to detect undue preference. CTPL has established the required policies and procedures to comply with the FERC’s Standards of Conduct and is subject to audit by the FERC to review compliance, policies and its training programs.

Several other material governmental and regulatory approvals and permits will be required throughout the life of our Liquefaction Project. In addition, the FERC orders require us to comply with certain ongoing conditions and obtain certain additional FERC and other regulatory agency approvals as construction progresses. To date, we have been able to obtain these approvals as needed and the need for these approvals has not materially affected our construction progress. Throughout the life of our LNG terminal and the Creole Trail Pipeline, we will be subject to regular reporting requirements to the FERC, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) and applicable federal and state regulatory agencies regarding the operation and maintenance of our facilities.

The FERC’s jurisdiction under the NGA allows it to impose civil and criminal penalties for any violations of the NGA and any rules, regulations or orders of the FERC up to $1.3 million per day per violation, including any conduct that violates the NGA’s prohibition against market manipulation. In accordance with the EPAct, the FERC issued a final rule under the NGA making it unlawful for any entity, in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or transportation service subject to the FERC’s jurisdiction, to defraud, make an untrue statement of material fact or omit a material fact or engage in any practice, act or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any entity.

DOE Export License

The DOE has authorized the export of domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal as discussed in Liquefaction Facilities. Although it is not expected to occur, the loss of an export authorization could be a force majeure event under our SPAs.

Exports of natural gas to FTA countries are “deemed to be consistent with the public interest” and authorization to export LNG to FTA countries shall be granted by the DOE without “modification or delay.” FTA countries which currently import LNG include Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea. Exports of natural gas to non-FTA countries are considered by the DOE in the context of a comment period whereby interveners are provided the opportunity to assert that such authorization would not be consistent with the public interest.
 
Pipelines

The Creole Trail Pipeline is also subject to regulation by the PHMSA, pursuant to which the PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities.

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, as amended (“PSIA”), which is administered by the PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety, governs the areas of testing, education, training and communication. The PSIA requires pipeline companies to perform extensive integrity tests on natural gas transportation pipelines that exist in high population density areas designated as “high consequence areas.” Pipeline companies are required to perform the integrity tests on a seven-year cycle. The risk ratings are based on numerous factors, including the population density in the geographic regions served by a particular pipeline, as well

6



as the age and condition of the pipeline and its protective coating. Testing consists of hydrostatic testing, internal electronic testing, or direct assessment of the piping. In addition to the pipeline integrity tests, pipeline companies must implement a qualification program to make certain that employees are properly trained. Pipeline operators also must develop integrity management programs for gas transportation pipelines, which requires pipeline operators to perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity; identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact a high consequence area; improve data collection, integration and analysis; repair and remediate the pipeline, as necessary; and implement preventive and mitigation actions.

In 2009, the PHMSA issued a final rule (known as “Control Room Management/Human Factors Rule”) that became effective in 2010 requiring pipeline operators to write and institute certain control room procedures that address human factors and fatigue management.

In March 2015, PHMSA issued a final rule amending the pipeline safety regulations to update and clarify certain regulatory requirements, including who can perform post-construction inspections on transmission pipelines. In September 2015, PHMSA issued a rule indefinitely delaying the effective date for the amendment to the regulation regarding post-construction inspections.
In May 2015, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend gas pipeline safety regulations regarding plastic piping systems used in gas services, including the installation of plastic pipe used for gas transmission lines. The PHMSA has not finalized any of the regulations proposed in this notice.

In July 2015, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to add a specific timeframe for operators’ notification of accidents or incidents, as well as amending the safety regulations regarding operator qualification requirements by expanding the requirements to include new construction and certain previously excluded operation and maintenance tasks, requiring a program effectiveness review and adding new recordkeeping requirements. In January 2017, PHMSA issued a final rule (effective as of March 24, 2017) adding a specific time frame for operators’ notification of accidents or incidents but delayed final action on the proposed operator qualification requirements until a later date.
In April 2016, the PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing changes to the regulations governing the safety of gas transmission pipelines. Specifically, PHMSA is considering certain integrity management requirements for “moderate consequence areas,” requiring an integrity verification process for specific categories of pipelines, and mandating more explicit requirements for the integration of data from integrity assessments to an operator’s compliance procedures. The PHMSA is also considering whether to revise requirements for corrosion control and expanding the definition of regulated gathering lines. These notices of proposed rulemaking are still pending at the PHMSA. The PHMSA has not finalized any of the regulations proposed in this notice.

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (“NGPSA”)

Louisiana administers federal pipeline safety standards under the NGPSA, which requires certain pipelines to comply with safety standards in constructing and operating the pipelines and subjects the pipelines to regular inspections. Failure to comply with the NGPSA may result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal sanctions.

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Jobs Creation Act of 2011

The Creole Trail Pipeline is also subject to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Jobs Creation Act of 2011, which regulates safety requirements in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of interstate natural gas transmission facilities. Under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, PHMSA has civil penalty authority up to approximately $200,000 per day per violation (increased from the prior $100,000), with a maximum of approximately $2 million in civil penalties for any related series of violations (increased from the prior $1 million).

Other Governmental Permits, Approvals and Authorizations

The construction and operation of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal are subject to additional federal permits, orders, approvals and consultations required by federal agencies, including the DOT, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

7




Three significant permits are the USACE Section 404 of the Clean Water Act/Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Permit (the “Section 10/404 Permit”), the Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit (the “Title V Permit”) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit (the “PSD Permit”), of which the latter two permits are issued by the LDEQ.

The application for revision of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal’s Section 10/404 Permit to authorize construction of Trains 1 through 4 was submitted in January 2011. The process included a public comment period which commenced in March 2011 and closed in April 2011. The revised Section 10/404 Permit was received from the USACE in March 2012. A modification to the Section 10/404 Permit, to address wetlands impacted by the construction of Trains 5 and 6, was issued by the USACE in June 2015. The USACE acted in the capacity as a cooperating agency in the review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In addition, a Section 10/404 Permit application is pending with respect to the expansion of the Creole Trail Pipeline. These permits will require us to provide mitigation to compensate for the wetlands impacted by the respective projects. The application to amend the Sabine Pass LNG terminal’s existing Title V and PSD Permits to authorize construction of Trains 1 through 4 was initially submitted in December 2010 and revised in March 2011. The process included a public comment period from June 2011 to August 2011 and a public hearing in August 2011. The final revised Title V and PSD Permits were issued by the LDEQ in December 2011. Although these permits are final, a petition with the EPA has been filed pursuant to the Clean Air Act requesting that the EPA object to the Title V Permit. The EPA has not ruled on this petition. In June 2012, SPL applied to the LDEQ for a further amendment to the Title V and PSD Permits to reflect proposed modifications to the Liquefaction Project that were filed with the FERC in October 2012. The LDEQ issued the amended PSD and Title V Permits in March 2013. These permits are final. In September 2013, SPL applied to the LDEQ for an amendment to its PSD and Title V Permits seeking approval to, among other things, construct and operate Trains 5 and 6. The LDEQ issued the amended PSD and Title V Permit in June 2015. These permits are final. In October 2016, SPL applied to the LDEQ for another amendment to its PSD and Title V Permits to reflect certain facility modifications, updated emissions and as-built capacity factors. The LDEQ issued the amended PSD and Title V Permits in September 2017. These permits are final.

CTPL was issued new Title V and PSD Permits for the proposed modifications to the Creole Trail Pipeline system by the LDEQ in November 2013.

In August 2014, the Sabine Pass LNG terminal’s existing wastewater discharge permit was modified by LDEQ to authorize the discharge of wastewaters from the liquefaction facilities. In December 2017, further modification of this permit was granted to include wastewaters generated with respect to the anticipated operations of Trains 5 and 6.

The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is subject to PHMSA safety regulations and standards for the transportation and storage of LNG and regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard relating to maritime safety and facility security.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) amended the Commodity Exchange Act to provide for federal regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The regulatory regime created by the Dodd-Frank Act is designed primarily to (1) regulate certain participants in the swaps markets, including entities falling within the categories of “Swap Dealer” and “Major Swap Participant,” (2) require clearing and exchange trading of standardized swaps of certain classes as designated by the CFTC, (3) increase swap market transparency through robust reporting and recordkeeping requirements, (4) reduce financial risks in the derivatives market by imposing margin or collateral requirements on both cleared and, in certain cases, uncleared swaps, (5) provide the CFTC with expanded authority to establish position limits on certain physical commodity futures and options contracts and their economically equivalent swaps as it finds necessary and appropriate and (6) otherwise enhance the rulemaking and enforcement authority of the CFTC and the SEC regarding the derivatives markets. As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC, the SEC and other regulators have been promulgating rules and regulations implementing the regulatory provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. While most of these regulations are already in effect, the implementation process is still ongoing and the CFTC continues to review and refine its rulemakings through additional interpretations and supplemental rulemakings.

A provision of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC, in order to diminish or prevent excessive speculation in commodity markets, to adopt rules, as it finds necessary and appropriate, imposing new position limits on certain physical commodity futures contracts and options thereon, as well as economically equivalent swaps traded on registered swap trading platforms and on over-the-counter swaps that perform a significant price discovery function with respect to certain markets. In that regard, the CFTC has re-proposed position limits rules that would modify and expand the applicability of limits on speculative positions in certain

8



physical commodity futures contracts, and economically equivalent futures, options and swaps for or linked to certain physical commodities, including Henry Hub natural gas, that market participants may hold, subject to limited exemptions for certain bona fide hedging and other types of transactions. It is uncertain at this time whether, when and in what form the CFTC’s proposed new position limits rules may become final and effective.

Pursuant to rules adopted by the CFTC, certain interest rate swaps and index credit default swaps must be cleared through a derivatives clearing organization and executed on an exchange or swap execution facility. The CFTC has not yet proposed to designate swaps in any other asset classes, including swaps relating to physical commodities, for mandatory clearing and trade execution, but could do so in the future. Although we expect to qualify for the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing and exchange-trading requirements applicable to any swaps that we enter into to hedge our commercial risks, the mandatory clearing and exchange-trading requirements may apply to other market participants, including our counterparties (who may be registered as Swap Dealers), with respect to other swaps, and the application of such rules may change the market cost and general availability in the market of swaps of the type we enter into to hedge our commercial risks and, thus, the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging.

As required by provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC and federal banking regulators have adopted rules to require Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, including those that are regulated financial institutions, to collect initial and/or variation margin with respect to uncleared swaps from their counterparties that are financial end users, registered swap dealers or major swap participants. These rules, which, as to the collection of initial margin, are being phased in, do not require collection of margin from non-financial-entity end users who qualify for the end user exception from the mandatory clearing requirement or from non-financial end users or certain other counterparties in certain instances. We expect to qualify as such a non-financial-entity end user with respect to the swaps that we enter into to hedge our commercial risks.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC is directed generally to prevent manipulation of or fraud involving financial instruments, such as futures, options and swaps, on any commodity, including contracts for sale of physical commodities such as physical energy. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has adopted additional anti-manipulation and anti-disruptive trading practices regulations that prohibit, among other things, manipulative, deceptive or fraudulent schemes or material misrepresentation in the futures, options, swaps and cash markets. In addition, separate from the Dodd-Frank Act, our use of futures and options on commodities is subject to the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, as well as the rules of futures exchanges on which any of these instruments are executed. Should we violate any of these laws and regulations, we could be subject to a CFTC or an exchange enforcement action and material penalties, possibly resulting in changes in the rates we can charge. The Dodd-Frank Act’s swaps regulatory provisions and the related rules may adversely affect our existing derivative contracts and restrict our ability to monetize such contracts, cause us to restructure certain contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks or to optimize assets, increase the costs of entering into and maintaining swaps, adversely affect our ability to execute our hedging strategies and impact the liquidity of certain swaps products, all of which could increase our business costs.

Environmental Regulation
 
The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and natural resources. These environmental laws and regulations require significant expenditures for compliance, can affect the cost and output of operations and may impose substantial penalties for non-compliance and substantial liabilities for pollution. Many of these laws and regulations, such as those noted below, restrict or prohibit impacts to the environment or the types, quantities and concentration of substances that can be released into the environment and can lead to substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties for non-compliance.
 
Clean Air Act (“CAA”)
 
The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is subject to the federal CAA and comparable state and local laws. We may be required to incur certain capital expenditures over the next several years for air pollution control equipment in connection with maintaining or obtaining permits and approvals addressing air emission-related issues. We do not believe, however, that our operations, or the construction and operations of our liquefaction facilities, will be materially and adversely affected by any such requirements.
 
In 2009, the EPA promulgated and finalized the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for multiple sections of the economy. This rule requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from stationary sources, including fuel combustion sources. In 2010, the EPA expanded the rule to include reporting obligations for LNG terminals. In addition, the EPA

9



has defined GHG emissions thresholds that would subject GHG emissions from new and modified industrial sources to regulation if the source is subject to PSD Permit requirements due to its emissions of non-GHG criteria pollutants. The Obama Administration took several actions intended to limit GHG emissions, including regulating emissions from new and existing Electricity Generating Units (“EGUs”) and from new and modified oil and gas operations. The timing, extent and impact of these rules and other Obama Administration initiatives remain uncertain as the Trump Administration has undertaken steps to delay their implementation, and to review, repeal and potentially replace them. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan after concluding the October 2015 final rule exceeds EPA’s statutory authority under the CAA. The October 2017 proposal does not include regulations to replace the Clean Power Plan and EPA stated in the October 2017 proposal that it has not determined whether it will issue replacement regulations to regulate GHG emissions from existing EGUs. Many of the Trump Administration’s efforts to rollback Obama Administration actions have been challenged in court.

From time to time, Congress has considered proposed legislation directed at reducing GHG emissions. In addition, many states have already taken regulatory action to monitor and/or reduce emissions of GHGs, primarily through the development of GHG emission inventories or regional GHG cap and trade programs. It is not possible at this time to predict how future regulations or legislation may address GHG emissions and impact our business. However, future regulations and laws could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”)
 
The siting and construction of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal within the coastal zone may be subject to the requirements of the CZMA. The CZMA is administered by the states (in Louisiana, by the Department of Natural Resources, and in Texas, by the General Land Office). This program is implemented to ensure that impacts to coastal areas are consistent with the intent of the CZMA to manage the coastal areas.

Clean Water Act (“CWA”)
 
The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is subject to the federal CWA and analogous state and local laws. The CWA imposes strict controls on the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States, including discharges of wastewater and storm water runoff and fill/discharges into waters of the United States. Permits must be obtained prior to discharging pollutants into state and federal waters. The CWA is administered by the EPA, the USACE and by the states (in Louisiana, by the LDEQ).
 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)
 
The federal RCRA and comparable state statutes govern the generation, handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes and require corrective action for releases into the environment. In the event such wastes are generated in connection with our facilities, we will be subject to regulatory requirements affecting the handling, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of such wastes.
 
Protection of Species, Habitats and Wetlands

Various federal and state statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the CWA and the Oil Pollution Act, prohibit certain activities that may adversely affect endangered or threatened animal, fish and plant species and/or their designated habitats, wetlands, or other natural resources. If the Sabine Pass LNG terminal or the Creole Trail Pipeline may adversely affect a protected species or its habitat, we may be required to develop and follow a plan to avoid those impacts. In that case, siting, construction or operation may be delayed or restricted and cause us to incur increased costs.

Market Factors and Competition

The Liquefaction Project currently does not experience competition with respect to Trains 1 through 5. SPL has entered into six fixed price SPAs with terms of at least 20 years (plus extension rights) with third parties that will utilize substantially all of the liquefaction capacity available from these Trains. Each customer will be required to pay an escalating fixed fee for its annual contract quantity even if it elects not to purchase any LNG from us.

If and when SPL needs to replace any existing SPA or enter into new SPAs, SPL will compete on the basis of price per contracted volume of LNG with other natural gas liquefaction projects throughout the world. Cheniere is currently developing a

10



natural gas liquefaction facility near Corpus Christi, Texas and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (“CCL”) has entered into nine fixed price, 20-year third-party SPAs for the sale of LNG from this natural gas liquefaction facility, and may continue to enter into commercial agreements with respect to this natural gas liquefaction facility that might otherwise have been entered into with respect to Train 6. Revenues associated with any incremental volumes of the Liquefaction Project, including those under the Cheniere Marketing SPA discussed above, will also be subject to market-based price competition. Many of the companies with which we compete are major energy corporations with longer operating histories, more development experience, greater name recognition, greater financial, technical and marketing resources and greater access to markets than us.

SPLNG currently does not experience competition for its terminal capacity because the entire approximately 4.0 Bcf/d of regasification capacity that is available at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal has been fully contracted. If and when SPLNG has to replace any TUAs, it will compete with other then-existing LNG terminals for customers.

Our ability to enter into additional long-term SPAs to underpin the development of additional Trains, sell any quantities of LNG available under the SPAs with Cheniere Marketing, or develop new projects is subject to market factors. These factors include changes in worldwide supply and demand for natural gas, LNG and substitute products, the relative prices for natural gas, crude oil and substitute products in North America and international markets, the rate of fuel switching for power generation from coal, nuclear or oil to natural gas and economic growth in developing countries. In addition, Cheniere’s ability to obtain additional funding to execute its business strategy is subject to the investment community’s appetite for investment in LNG and natural gas infrastructure and Cheniere’s ability to access capital markets.

We expect that global demand for natural gas and LNG will continue to increase as nations seek more abundant, reliable and environmentally cleaner fuel alternatives to oil and coal.  Global demand for natural gas is projected by the International Energy Agency to grow by approximately 19 trillion cubic feet (“Tcf”) between 2016 and 2025, with LNG’s share growing from about 10% currently to about 15% of the global gas market.  Wood Mackenzie forecasts that global demand for LNG will increase by 65%, from approximately 255 mtpa, or 12.2 Tcf, in 2016, to approximately 422 mtpa, or 20.3 Tcf, in 2025, and that LNG production from existing facilities and new facilities already under construction will be able to supply the market with approximately 386 mtpa in 2025, resulting in a market need for construction of additional facilities capable of producing an incremental 36.4 mtpa of LNG.  We believe Train 6 is competitive with new proposed projects globally and is well-positioned to capture a portion of this incremental market need.

Our LNG business has limited exposure to the decline in oil prices as we have contracted a significant portion of our LNG production capacity under long-term sale and purchase agreements. These agreements contain fixed fees that are required to be paid even if the customers elect to cancel or suspend delivery of LNG cargoes.  To date, we have contracted an aggregate amount of LNG that is between approximately 80% to 95% of the expected aggregate adjusted nominal production capacity for Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project with third-party customers. As of January 31, 2018, U.S. natural gas prices indicate that LNG exported from the U.S. continues to be competitively priced, supporting the opportunity for U.S. LNG to fill uncontracted future demand through the execution of long-term, medium-term and short-term contracting of LNG from our terminal.

Subsidiaries
 
Our assets are generally held by or under our subsidiaries. We conduct most of our business through these subsidiaries, including the development, construction and operation of our LNG terminal business.

Employees
 
We have no employees. We rely on our general partner to manage all aspects of the development, construction, operation and maintenance of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and the Liquefaction Project and to conduct our business. Because our general partner has no employees, it relies on subsidiaries of Cheniere to provide the personnel necessary to allow it to meet its management obligations to us, SPLNG, SPL and CTPL. As of January 31, 2018, Cheniere and its subsidiaries had 1,230 full-time employees, including 455 employees who directly supported the Sabine Pass LNG terminal operations. See Note 12—Related Party Transactions of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the services agreements pursuant to which general and administrative services are provided to us, SPLNG, SPL and CTPL. 


11



Available Information

Our common units have been publicly traded since March 21, 2007 and are traded on the NYSE American under the symbol “CQP.” Our principal executive offices are located at 700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002, and our telephone number is (713) 375-5000. Our internet address is www.cheniere.com. We provide public access to our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those materials with, or furnish those materials to, the SEC under the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These reports may be accessed free of charge through our internet website. We make our website content available for informational purposes only. The website should not be relied upon for investment purposes and is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.

We will also make available to any unitholder, without charge, copies of our annual report on Form 10-K as filed with the SEC. For copies of this, or any other filing, please contact: Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P, Investor Relations Department, 700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002 or call (713) 375-5000. In addition, the public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an internet site (www.sec.gov) that contains reports and other information regarding issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC.

ITEM 1A.
RISK FACTORS 

Limited partner interests are inherently different from the capital stock of a corporation, although many of the business risks to which we are subject are similar to those that would be faced by a corporation engaged in a similar business. The following are some of the important factors that could affect our financial performance or could cause actual results to differ materially from estimates or expectations contained in our forward-looking statements. We may encounter risks in addition to those described below. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial, may also impair or adversely affect our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flows, liquidity and prospects. 
The risk factors in this report are grouped into the following categories: 
Risks Relating to Our Financial Matters; 
Risks Relating to Our Business; 
Risks Relating to Our Cash Distributions; 
Risks Relating to an Investment in Us and Our Common Units; and 
Risks Relating to Tax Matters.

Risks Relating to Our Financial Matters
 
Our existing level of cash resources and significant debt could cause us to have inadequate liquidity and could materially and adversely affect our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
 
As of December 31, 2017, we had zero cash and cash equivalents, $1.6 billion of current restricted cash and $16.2 billion of total debt outstanding on a consolidated basis (before debt discounts, debt premiums and unamortized debt issuance costs), excluding $750 million aggregate outstanding letters of credit. We incur, and will incur, significant interest expense relating to the assets at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and we anticipate needing to incur additional debt to finance the construction of Train 6 of the Liquefaction Project. Our ability to fund our capital expenditures and refinance our indebtedness will depend on our ability to access additional project financing as well as the debt and equity capital markets. A variety of factors beyond our control could impact the availability or cost of capital, including domestic or international economic conditions, increases in key benchmark interest rates and/or credit spreads, the adoption of new or amended banking or capital market laws or regulations and the repricing of market risks and volatility in capital and financial markets. Our financing costs could increase or future borrowings or equity offerings may be unavailable to us or unsuccessful, which could cause us to be unable to pay or refinance our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. We also rely on borrowings under our credit facilities (the “2016 CQP Credit Facilities”) to fund our capital expenditures. If any of the lenders in the syndicates backing these facilities was unable to perform on its commitments, we may need to seek replacement financing, which may not be available as needed, or may be available in more limited amounts or on more expensive or otherwise unfavorable terms.

12




We have not been profitable historically. We may not achieve profitability or generate positive operating cash flow in the future.
 
We had net income of $490 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and net losses of $171 million and $319 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. In the future, we may incur operating losses and experience negative operating cash flow. We may not be able to reduce costs, increase revenues, or reduce our debt service obligations sufficiently to maintain our cash resources, which could cause us to have inadequate liquidity to continue our business.

We will continue to incur significant capital and operating expenditures while we develop and construct the Liquefaction Project. Any delays beyond the expected development period for our Trains could cause, and could increase the level of, our operating losses. Our future liquidity may also be affected by the timing of construction financing availability in relation to the incurrence of construction costs and other outflows and by the timing of receipt of cash flows under SPAs in relation to the incurrence of project and operating expenses. Moreover, many factors (including factors beyond our control) could result in a disparity between liquidity sources and cash needs, including factors such as construction delays and breaches of agreements. Our ability to generate any significant positive operating cash flow and achieve profitability in the future is dependent on our ability to successfully and timely complete and operate the applicable Train.

We may sell equity or equity-related securities, including additional common units. Such sales could dilute our unitholders’ proportionate indirect interests in our assets, business operations, Liquefaction Project and other projects, and could adversely affect the market price of our common units.

We have pursued and are pursuing a number of alternatives in order to finance the construction of Train 6, including potential issuances and sales of additional equity or equity-related securities. Such sales, in one or more transactions, could dilute our unitholders’ proportionate indirect interests in our assets, business operations and proposed projects, including the Liquefaction Project. In addition, such sales, or the anticipation of such sales, could adversely affect the market price of our common units.

Our ability to generate cash is substantially dependent upon the performance by customers under long-term contracts that we have entered into, and we could be materially and adversely affected if any customer fails to perform its contractual obligations for any reason.
 
Our future results and liquidity are substantially dependent upon performance by Chevron and Total, each of which has entered into a TUA with SPLNG and agreed to pay SPLNG approximately $125 million annually, and on the performance, upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent to payment thereunder, by six third-party customers that have entered into SPAs with SPL and agreed to pay SPL an aggregate of $2.9 billion annually in fixed fees. We are dependent on each customer’s continued willingness and ability to perform its obligations under its SPA. We are exposed to the credit risk of any guarantor of these customers’ obligations under their respective TUA or SPA in the event that we must seek recourse under a guaranty. If any customer fails to perform its obligations under its TUA or SPA, our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects could be materially and adversely affected, even if we were ultimately successful in seeking damages from that customer or its guarantor for a breach of the TUA or SPA.

Each of our customer contracts is subject to termination under certain circumstances.
 
Each of SPLNG’s long-term TUAs contains various termination rights. For example, each customer may terminate its TUA if the Sabine Pass LNG terminal experiences a force majeure delay for longer than 18 months, fails to redeliver a specified amount of natural gas in accordance with the customer’s redelivery nominations or fails to accept and unload a specified number of the customer’s proposed LNG cargoes. SPLNG may not be able to replace these TUAs on desirable terms, or at all, if they are terminated.

Each of SPL’s SPAs contains various termination rights allowing our customers to terminate their SPAs, including, without limitation: (1) upon the occurrence of certain events of force majeure; (2) if we fail to make available specified scheduled cargo quantities; and (3) delays in the commencement of commercial operations. We may not be able to replace these SPAs on desirable terms, or at all, if they are terminated.


13



Our use of hedging arrangements may adversely affect our future operating results or liquidity.

To reduce our exposure to fluctuations in the price, volume and timing risk associated with the purchase of natural gas, we use futures, swaps and option contracts traded or cleared on the Intercontinental Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange, or over-the-counter options and swaps with other natural gas merchants and financial institutions. Hedging arrangements would expose us to risk of financial loss in some circumstances, including when:
expected supply is less than the amount hedged;
the counterparty to the hedging contract defaults on its contractual obligations; or
there is a change in the expected differential between the underlying price in the hedging agreement and actual prices received.

The use of derivatives also may require the posting of cash collateral with counterparties, which can impact working capital when commodity prices change.

The swaps regulatory and other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules adopted thereunder and other regulations could adversely affect our ability to hedge risks associated with our business and our operating results and cash flows.

The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules adopted and to be adopted by the CFTC, the SEC and other federal regulators establishing federal regulation of the over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives market and entities like us that participate in that market may adversely affect our ability to manage certain of our risks on a cost effective basis. Such laws and regulations may also adversely affect our ability to execute our strategies with respect to hedging our exposure to variability in expected future cash flows attributable to the future sale of our LNG inventory and to price risk attributable to future purchases of natural gas to be utilized as fuel to operate our LNG terminals and to secure natural gas feedstock for our Liquefaction Project.

The CFTC has re-proposed position limits rules that would modify and expand the applicability of position limits on the amounts of certain speculative futures contracts, as well as economically equivalent options, futures and swaps for or linked to certain physical commodities, including Henry Hub natural gas, that market participants may hold, subject to limited exemptions for certain bona fide hedging positions and other types of transactions. The CFTC also has adopted final rules regarding aggregation of positions that apply to futures on agricultural commodities, under which a party that controls the trading for the account of, or owns 10% or more of the equity interests in, another party will have to aggregate the positions in all such controlled accounts and of all such controlled or owned parties with their own positions for purposes of determining compliance with position limits rules unless an exemption applies. To the extent the revised CFTC position limits proposal becomes final, our ability to execute our hedging strategies described above could be limited. It is uncertain at this time whether, when and in what form the CFTC’s proposed new position limits rules may become final and effective.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules adopted thereunder, we may be required to clear through a derivatives clearing organization any swaps into which we enter that fall within a class of swaps designated by the CFTC for mandatory clearing and we could have to execute trades in such swaps on certain trading platforms or exchanges. The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and index credit default swaps for mandatory clearing, but has not yet proposed rules designating any physical commodity swaps, for mandatory clearing or mandatory exchange trading. Although we expect to qualify for the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements for our swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks, if we fail to qualify for that exception as to any swap we enter into and have to clear that swap through a derivatives clearing organization, we could be required to post margin with respect to such swap, our cost of entering into and maintaining such swap could increase and we would not enjoy the same flexibility with the cleared swaps that we enjoy with the uncleared OTC swaps we enter into. Moreover, the application of the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the market cost and general availability in the market of swaps of the type we enter into to hedge our commercial risks and, thus, the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC and federal banking regulators have adopted rules to require certain market participants to collect and post initial and/or variation margin with respect to uncleared swaps from their counterparties that are financial end users and certain registered swap dealers and major swap participants. Although we believe we will not be required to post margin with respect to any uncleared swaps we enter into in the future, were we required to post margin as to our uncleared swaps in the future, our cost of entering into and maintaining swaps would be increased. Our counterparties that are subject to the regulations imposing the Basel III capital requirements on them may increase the cost to us of entering into swaps with them or, although not required to collect margin from us under the margin rules, contractually require us to post collateral with them in

14



connection with such swaps in order to offset their increased capital costs or to reduce their capital costs to maintain those swaps on their balance sheets.

The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes other regulatory requirements on swaps market participants, including end users of swaps, such as regulations relating to swap documentation, reporting and recordkeeping, and certain business conduct rules applicable to swap dealers and major swap participants. Together with the Basel III capital requirements on certain swaps market participants, the regulatory requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules thereunder relating to swaps and derivatives market participants could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts (including through requirements to post margin or collateral), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against certain risks that we encounter and reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts and to execute our hedging strategies. If, as a result of the swaps regulatory regime discussed above, we were to reduce our use of swaps to hedge our risks, such as commodity price risks that we encounter in our operations, our operating results and cash flows may become more volatile and could be otherwise adversely affected.

We expect that our hedging activities will remain subject to significant and developing regulations and regulatory oversight. However, the full impact of the various U.S. (and non-U.S.) regulatory developments in connection with these activities will not be known with certainty until such derivatives market regulations are fully implemented and related market practices and structures are fully developed.

In making our investment decisions for the Liquefaction Project, we have relied on several economic development programs in Louisiana, including Industrial Tax Exemption (“ITE”) contracts.  If we were to lose significant tax incentives through the economic development programs or if the ITE contracts were declared void, the loss of such tax incentives and/or exemptions could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

SPL has utilized the ITE program, which is available for a “new” manufacturing establishment or an “addition” to an existing manufacturing establishment.  SPL has entered into a total of nine ITE contracts, which exempt from ad valorem property taxes all of SPL’s assets when placed in service.

On October 12, 2016, a lawsuit was filed by JMCB, LLC (“JMCB”) against SPL, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development (“LED”) and the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry (“BCI”) (the “Pending Matter”).  In the Pending Matter, JMCB contends that one of SPL’s ITE contracts should be declared an improper and unauthorized act of BCI.  JMCB asks the court to declare the contract null and void and without legal effect.  JMCB’s petition is filed as a class action that seeks declaratory relief for all similarly situated taxpayers in Cameron Parish and for the governmental agencies that would have received the ad valorem property taxes, but for the ITE contract.  SPL believes that the likelihood that the resolution of the Pending Matter will have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity or prospects is remote.  If we do not prevail in the Pending Matter, the loss of such tax exemption could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Risks Relating to Our Business 

Operation of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, the Liquefaction Project, the Creole Trail Pipeline and other facilities that we may construct involves significant risks.
 
As more fully discussed in these Risk Factors, the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, the Liquefaction Project, the Creole Trail Pipeline and our other existing and proposed LNG facilities face operational risks, including the following:
the facilities’ performing below expected levels of efficiency;
breakdown or failures of equipment;
operational errors by vessel or tug operators;
operational errors by us or any contracted facility operator;
labor disputes; and
weather-related interruptions of operations.

15



We may not be successful in fully implementing our proposed business strategy to provide liquefaction capabilities at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal adjacent to the existing regasification facilities.
 
It will take several years to construct the Liquefaction Project, and even if successfully constructed, the Liquefaction Project would be subject to the operating risks described herein. Accordingly, there are many risks associated with the Liquefaction Project, and if we are not successful in implementing our business strategy, we may not be able to generate cash flows, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Cost overruns and delays in the completion of one or more Trains, as well as difficulties in obtaining sufficient financing to pay for such costs and delays, could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
 
The actual construction costs of the Trains may be significantly higher than our current estimates as a result of many factors, including change orders under existing or future EPC contracts resulting from the occurrence of certain specified events that may give Bechtel the right to cause us to enter into change orders or resulting from changes with which we otherwise agree. We have already experienced increased costs due to change orders. We do not have any prior experience in constructing liquefaction facilities, and other than Trains 1 through 4 of the Liquefaction Project, as of January 2018, no liquefaction facilities have been constructed and placed in service in the United States in over 40 years. As construction progresses, we may decide or be forced to submit change orders to our contractor that could result in longer construction periods, higher construction costs or both, including change orders to comply with existing or future environmental or other regulations.

Delays in the construction of one or more Trains beyond the estimated development periods, as well as change orders to the EPC contracts with Bechtel or any future EPC contract related to additional Trains, could increase the cost of completion beyond the amounts that we estimate, which could require us to obtain additional sources of financing to fund our operations until the Liquefaction Project is fully constructed (which could cause further delays). Our ability to obtain financing that may be needed to provide additional funding to cover increased costs will depend, in part, on factors beyond our control. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain financing on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain financing, we may have to accept terms that are disadvantageous to us or that may have a material adverse effect on our current or future business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
Delays in the completion of one or more Trains could lead to reduced revenues or termination of one or more of the SPAs by our customers.
 
Any delay in completion of a Train could cause a delay in the receipt of revenues projected therefrom or cause a loss of one or more customers in the event of significant delays. In particular, each of our SPAs provides that the customer may terminate that SPA if the relevant Train does not timely commence commercial operations. As a result, any significant construction delay, whatever the cause, could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Our ability to complete development of Train 6 will be contingent on our ability to obtain additional funding. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, we may be unable to fully execute our business strategy.
 
We will require significant additional funding to be able to commence construction of Train 6, which we may not be able to obtain at a cost that results in positive economics, or at all. The inability to achieve acceptable funding may cause a delay in the development of Train 6, and we may not be able to complete our business plan. Even if we are able to obtain funding, the funding may be inadequate to cover any increases in costs or delays in completion of Train 6, which may cause a delay in the receipt of revenues projected therefrom or cause a loss of one or more future customers in the event of significant delays. As a result, any significant construction delay, whatever the cause, could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Hurricanes or other disasters could result in an interruption of our operations, a delay in the completion of the Liquefaction Project, higher construction costs and the deferral of the dates on which payments are due to SPL under the SPAs, all of which could adversely affect us.
 
In August and September of 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, respectively, damaged coastal and inland areas located in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, resulting in the temporary suspension of construction of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal.

16



In September 2008, Hurricane Ike struck the Texas and Louisiana coasts, and the Sabine Pass LNG terminal experienced minor damage. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey struck the Texas and Louisiana coasts, and the Sabine Pass LNG terminal experienced a temporary suspension in construction and LNG loading operations.

Future storms and related storm activity and collateral effects, or other disasters such as explosions, fires, floods or accidents, could result in damage to, or interruption of operations at, the Sabine Pass LNG terminal or related infrastructure, as well as delays or cost increases in the construction and the development of the Liquefaction Project and related infrastructure. Changes in the global climate may have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods and rising sea levels; if any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our coastal operations.
 
Failure to obtain and maintain approvals and permits from governmental and regulatory agencies with respect to the design, construction and operation of our facilities could impede operations and construction and could have a material adverse effect on us.

The design, construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG terminals, including the Liquefaction Project, and other facilities, and the import and export of LNG and the transportation of natural gas, are highly regulated activities. Approvals of the FERC and DOE under Section 3 and Section 7 of the NGA, as well as several other material governmental and regulatory approvals and permits, including several under the CAA and the CWA, are required in order to construct and operate an LNG facility and an interstate natural gas pipeline and export LNG. Although the FERC has issued orders under Section 3 of the NGA authorizing the siting, construction and operation of six Trains and related facilities and Section 7 of the NGA authorizing the construction and operation of the Creole Trail Pipeline, the FERC orders require us to comply with certain ongoing conditions and obtain certain additional approvals in conjunction with ongoing construction and operations of the Liquefaction Project and the operations of the Creole Trail Pipeline. We will be required to obtain similar approvals and permits with respect to any expansion or modification of our liquefaction and pipeline facilities. We cannot control the outcome of the FERC’s or the DOE’s review and approval processes. Certain of these governmental permits, approvals and authorizations are or may be subject to rehearing requests, appeals and other challenges.

Authorizations obtained from the FERC, DOE and other federal and state regulatory agencies also contain ongoing conditions, and additional approval and permit requirements may be imposed. We do not know whether or when any such approvals or permits can be obtained, or whether any existing or potential interventions or other actions by third parties will interfere with our ability to obtain and maintain such permits or approvals. If we are unable to obtain and maintain the necessary approvals and permits, including as a result of untimely notices or filings, we may not be able to recover our investment in our projects. There is no assurance that we will obtain and maintain these governmental permits, approvals and authorizations, or that we will be able to obtain them on a timely basis, and failure to obtain and maintain any of these permits, approvals or authorizations could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
 
We are entirely dependent on Cheniere, including employees of Cheniere and its subsidiaries, for key personnel, and the unavailability of skilled workers or failure to attract and retain qualified personnel could adversely affect us. In addition, changes in our general partner’s senior management or other key personnel could affect our business results.
 
As of January 31, 2018, Cheniere and its subsidiaries had 1,230 full-time employees, including 455 employees who directly supported the Sabine Pass LNG terminal operations. We have contracted with subsidiaries of Cheniere to provide the personnel necessary for the operation, maintenance and management of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, the Creole Trail Pipeline and construction of the Liquefaction Project. We depend on Cheniere’s subsidiaries hiring and retaining personnel sufficient to provide support for the Sabine Pass LNG terminal. Cheniere competes with other liquefaction projects in the United States and globally, other energy companies and other employers to attract and retain qualified personnel with the technical skills and experience required to construct and operate liquefaction facilities and pipelines and to provide our customers with the highest quality service. We also compete with any other project Cheniere is developing, including its liquefaction project at Corpus Christi, Texas, for the time and expertise of Cheniere’s personnel. Further, we and Cheniere face competition for these highly skilled employees in the immediate vicinity of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and more generally from the Gulf Coast hydrocarbon processing and construction industries.
 
The executive officers of our general partner are officers and employees of Cheniere and its affiliates. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies on any personnel, and our general partner does not have any employment contracts or other agreements with key personnel binding them to provide services for any particular term. The loss of the services of any of these

17



individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, our future success will depend in part on our general partner’s ability to engage, and Cheniere’s ability to attract and retain additional qualified personnel.

A shortage in the labor pool of skilled workers or other general inflationary pressures or changes in applicable laws and regulations could make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel and could require an increase in the wage and benefits packages that are offered, thereby increasing our operating costs. Any increase in our operating costs could materially and adversely affect our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

We have numerous contractual and commercial relationships, and conflicts of interest, with Cheniere and its affiliates, including Cheniere Marketing.
 
We have agreements to compensate and to reimburse expenses of affiliates of Cheniere. In addition, Cheniere Investments has entered into an amended and restated variable capacity rights agreement (the “Amended and Restated VCRA”) with Cheniere Marketing, under which Cheniere Marketing will be able to derive economic benefits to the extent it assists Cheniere Investments in commercializing Cheniere Investments’ access to capacity at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal through its agreement with SPL, which has a TUA with SPLNG. In addition, Cheniere Marketing has entered into an SPA to purchase, at Cheniere Marketing’s option, any LNG produced by SPL in excess of that required for other customers. All of these agreements involve conflicts of interest between us, on the one hand, and Cheniere and its other affiliates, on the other hand. In addition, Cheniere is currently developing and constructing a natural gas liquefaction facility near Corpus Christi, Texas and CCL has entered into nine long-term third-party SPAs for the sale of LNG from this natural gas liquefaction facility, and may continue to enter into commercial arrangements with respect to this liquefaction facility that might otherwise have been entered into with respect to Train 6.

We expect that there will be additional agreements or arrangements with Cheniere and its affiliates, including future transportation, interconnection and gas balancing agreements with one or more Cheniere-affiliated natural gas pipelines as well as other agreements and arrangements that cannot now be anticipated. In those circumstances where additional contracts with Cheniere and its affiliates may be necessary or desirable, additional conflicts of interest will be involved.

We are dependent on Cheniere and its affiliates to provide services to us. If Cheniere or its affiliates are unable or unwilling to perform according to the negotiated terms and timetable of their respective agreement for any reason or terminate their agreement, we would be required to engage a substitute service provider. This could result in a significant interference with operations and increased costs.

We are dependent on Bechtel and other contractors for the successful completion of the Liquefaction Project.

Timely and cost-effective completion of the Liquefaction Project in compliance with agreed specifications is central to our business strategy and is highly dependent on the performance of Bechtel and our other contractors under their agreements. The ability of Bechtel and our other contractors to perform successfully under their agreements is dependent on a number of factors, including their ability to:
design and engineer each Train to operate in accordance with specifications;
engage and retain third-party subcontractors and procure equipment and supplies;
respond to difficulties such as equipment failure, delivery delays, schedule changes and failure to perform by subcontractors, some of which are beyond their control;
attract, develop and retain skilled personnel, including engineers;
post required construction bonds and comply with the terms thereof;
manage the construction process generally, including coordinating with other contractors and regulatory agencies; and
maintain their own financial condition, including adequate working capital.
Although some agreements may provide for liquidated damages if the contractor fails to perform in the manner required with respect to certain of its obligations, the events that trigger a requirement to pay liquidated damages may delay or impair the operation of the Liquefaction Project, and any liquidated damages that we receive may not be sufficient to cover the damages that we suffer as a result of any such delay or impairment. The obligations of Bechtel and our other contractors to pay liquidated damages under their agreements are subject to caps on liability, as set forth therein.


18



Furthermore, we may have disagreements with our contractors about different elements of the construction process, which could lead to the assertion of rights and remedies under their contracts and increase the cost of the Liquefaction Project or result in a contractor’s unwillingness to perform further work on the Liquefaction Project. If any contractor is unable or unwilling to perform according to the negotiated terms and timetable of its respective agreement for any reason or terminates its agreement, we would be required to engage a substitute contractor. This would likely result in significant project delays and increased costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

We are relying on third-party engineers to estimate the future capacity ratings and performance capabilities of the Liquefaction Project, and these estimates may prove to be inaccurate.

We are relying on third parties, principally Bechtel, for the design and engineering services underlying our estimates of the future capacity ratings and performance capabilities of the Liquefaction Project. If any Train, when actually constructed, fails to have the capacity ratings and performance capabilities that we intend, our estimates may not be accurate. Failure of any of our Trains to achieve our intended capacity ratings and performance capabilities could prevent us from achieving the commercial start dates under our SPAs and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

If third-party pipelines and other facilities interconnected to our pipelines and facilities are or become unavailable to transport natural gas, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
 
We depend upon third-party pipelines and other facilities that will provide gas delivery options to the Liquefaction Project and to and from the Creole Trail Pipeline. If the construction of new or modified pipeline connections is not completed on schedule or any pipeline connection were to become unavailable for current or future volumes of natural gas due to repairs, damage to the facility, lack of capacity or any other reason, our ability to meet our SPA obligations and continue shipping natural gas from producing regions or to end markets could be restricted, thereby reducing our revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

We may not be able to purchase or receive physical delivery of sufficient natural gas to satisfy our delivery obligations under the SPAs, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Under the SPAs with our customers, we are required to make available to them a specified amount of LNG at specified times. However, we may not be able to purchase or receive physical delivery of sufficient quantities of natural gas to satisfy those obligations, which may provide affected SPA customers with the right to terminate their SPAs. Our failure to purchase or receive physical delivery of sufficient quantities of natural gas could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

We are subject to significant operating hazards and uninsured risks, one or more of which may create significant liabilities and losses for us.

The construction and operation of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and the Creole Trail Pipeline are, and will be, subject to the inherent risks associated with these types of operations, including explosions, pollution, release of toxic substances, fires, hurricanes and adverse weather conditions, and other hazards, each of which could result in significant delays in commencement or interruptions of operations and/or in damage to or destruction of our facilities or damage to persons and property. In addition, our operations and the facilities and vessels of third parties on which our operations are dependent face possible risks associated with acts of aggression or terrorism.
 
We do not, nor do we intend to, maintain insurance against all of these risks and losses. We may not be able to maintain desired or required insurance in the future at rates that we consider reasonable. The occurrence of a significant event not fully insured or indemnified against could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects. 


19



Cyclical or other changes in the demand for and price of LNG and natural gas may adversely affect our LNG business and the performance of our customers and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flows, liquidity and prospects.
 
Our LNG business and the development of domestic LNG facilities and projects generally is based on assumptions about the future availability and price of natural gas and LNG, and the prospects for international natural gas and LNG markets. Natural gas and LNG prices have been, and are likely to continue to be, volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to one or more of the following factors:
additions to competitive regasification capacity in North America, Europe, Asia and other markets, which could divert LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal;
competitive liquefaction capacity in North America;
insufficient or oversupply of natural gas liquefaction or receiving capacity worldwide;
insufficient LNG tanker capacity;
weather conditions;
reduced demand and lower prices for natural gas;
increased natural gas production deliverable by pipelines, which could suppress demand for LNG;
decreased oil and natural gas exploration activities, which may decrease the production of natural gas;
cost improvements that allow competitors to offer LNG regasification services or provide natural gas liquefaction capabilities at reduced prices;
changes in supplies of, and prices for, alternative energy sources such as coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar energy, which may reduce the demand for natural gas;
changes in regulatory, tax or other governmental policies regarding imported or exported LNG, natural gas or alternative energy sources, which may reduce the demand for imported or exported LNG and/or natural gas;
political conditions in natural gas producing regions;
adverse relative demand for LNG compared to other markets, which may decrease LNG imports into or exports from North America; and
cyclical trends in general business and economic conditions that cause changes in the demand for natural gas.
Adverse trends or developments affecting any of these factors could result in decreases in the price of LNG and/or natural gas, which could materially and adversely affect the performance of our customers, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flows, liquidity and prospects.

Failure of imported or exported LNG to be a competitive source of energy for international markets could adversely affect our customers and could materially and adversely affect our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Operations of the Liquefaction Project will be dependent upon the ability of our SPA customers to deliver LNG supplies from the United States, which is primarily dependent upon LNG being a competitive source of energy internationally. The success of our business plan is dependent, in part, on the extent to which LNG can, for significant periods and in significant volumes, be supplied from North America and delivered to international markets at a lower cost than the cost of alternative energy sources. Through the use of improved exploration technologies, additional sources of natural gas may be discovered outside the United States, which could increase the available supply of natural gas outside the United States and could result in natural gas in those markets being available at a lower cost than LNG exported to those markets.

Operations at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal are dependent, in part, upon the ability of our TUA customers to import LNG supplies into the United States, which is primarily dependent upon LNG being a competitive source of energy in North America. In North America, due mainly to a historically abundant supply of natural gas and discoveries of substantial quantities of unconventional, or shale, natural gas, imported LNG has not developed into a significant energy source. The success of the regasification services component of our business plan is dependent, in part, on the extent to which LNG can, for significant periods

20



and in significant volumes, be produced internationally and delivered to North America at a lower cost than the cost to produce some domestic supplies of natural gas, or other alternative energy sources. Through the use of improved exploration technologies, additional sources of natural gas have recently been and may continue to be discovered in North America, which could further increase the available supply of natural gas and could result in natural gas being available at a lower cost than imported LNG.

Political instability in foreign countries that import or export natural gas, or strained relations between such countries and the United States, may also impede the willingness or ability of LNG purchasers or suppliers and merchants in such countries to import or export LNG from or to the United States. Furthermore, some foreign purchasers or suppliers of LNG may have economic or other reasons to obtain their LNG from, or direct their LNG to, non-U.S. markets or from or to our competitors’ liquefaction or regasification facilities in the United States.

In addition to natural gas, LNG also competes with other sources of energy, including coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar energy. LNG from the Liquefaction Project also competes with other sources of LNG, including LNG that is priced to indices other than Henry Hub. Some of these sources of energy may be available at a lower cost than LNG from the Liquefaction Project in certain markets. The cost of LNG supplies from the United States, including the Liquefaction Project, may also be impacted by an increase in natural gas prices in the United States.

As a result of these and other factors, LNG may not be a competitive source of energy in the United States or internationally. The failure of LNG to be a competitive supply alternative to local natural gas, oil and other alternative energy sources in markets accessible to our customers could adversely affect the ability of our customers to deliver LNG from the United States or to the United States on a commercial basis. Any significant impediment to the ability to deliver LNG to or from the United States generally, or to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal or from the Liquefaction Project specifically, could have a material adverse effect on our customers and on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Various economic and political factors could negatively affect the development, construction and operation of LNG facilities, including the Liquefaction Project, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Commercial development of an LNG facility takes a number of years, requires a substantial capital investment and may be delayed by factors such as:
increased construction costs;
economic downturns, increases in interest rates or other events that may affect the availability of sufficient financing for LNG projects on commercially reasonable terms;
decreases in the price of LNG, which might decrease the expected returns relating to investments in LNG projects;
the inability of project owners or operators to obtain governmental approvals to construct or operate LNG facilities;
political unrest or local community resistance to the siting of LNG facilities due to safety, environmental or security concerns; and
any significant explosion, spill or similar incident involving an LNG facility or LNG vessel.
There may be shortages of LNG vessels worldwide, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

The construction and delivery of LNG vessels require significant capital and long construction lead times, and the availability of the vessels could be delayed to the detriment of our business and our customers because of:
an inadequate number of shipyards constructing LNG vessels and a backlog of orders at these shipyards;
political or economic disturbances in the countries where the vessels are being constructed;
changes in governmental regulations or maritime self-regulatory organizations;
work stoppages or other labor disturbances at the shipyards;
bankruptcy or other financial crisis of shipbuilders;
quality or engineering problems;

21



weather interference or a catastrophic event, such as a major earthquake, tsunami or fire; and
shortages of or delays in the receipt of necessary construction materials.

We may not be able to secure firm pipeline transportation capacity on economic terms that is sufficient to meet our feed gas transportation requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

We have contracted for firm capacity for our natural gas feedstock transportation requirements for Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project.  We cannot control the regulatory and permitting approvals or third parties’ construction times. If and when we need to replace one or more of our agreements with these interconnecting pipelines, we may not be able to do so on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could impair our ability to fulfill our obligations under certain of our SPAs and could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

We face competition based upon the international market price for LNG.

The Liquefaction Project is subject to the risk of LNG price competition at times when we need to replace any existing SPA, whether due to natural expiration, default or otherwise, or enter into new SPAs with respect to Train 6. Factors relating to competition may prevent us from entering into a new or replacement SPA on economically comparable terms as existing SPAs, or at all. Such an event could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects. Factors which may negatively affect potential demand for LNG from the Liquefaction Project are diverse and include, among others:
increases in worldwide LNG production capacity and availability of LNG for market supply;
increases in demand for LNG but at levels below those required to maintain current price equilibrium with respect to supply;
increases in the cost to supply natural gas feedstock to the Liquefaction Project;
decreases in the cost of competing sources of natural gas or alternate fuels such as coal, heavy fuel oil and diesel;
decreases in the price of non-U.S. LNG, including decreases in price as a result of contracts indexed to lower oil prices;
increases in capacity and utilization of nuclear power and related facilities; and
displacement of LNG by pipeline natural gas or alternate fuels in locations where access to these energy sources is not currently available.
Terrorist attacks, including cyberterrorism, or military campaigns may adversely impact our business.

A terrorist, including a cyberterrorist, or military incident involving an LNG facility, our infrastructure or an LNG vessel may result in delays in, or cancellation of, construction of new LNG facilities, including one or more of the Trains, which would increase our costs and decrease our cash flows. A terrorist incident may also result in temporary or permanent closure of existing LNG facilities, including the Sabine Pass LNG terminal or the Creole Trail Pipeline, which could increase our costs and decrease our cash flows, depending on the duration and timing of the closure. Our operations could also become subject to increased governmental scrutiny that may result in additional security measures at a significant incremental cost to us. In addition, the threat of terrorism and the impact of military campaigns may lead to continued volatility in prices for natural gas that could adversely affect our business and our customers, including their ability to satisfy their obligations to us under our commercial agreements. Instability in the financial markets as a result of terrorism, including cyberterrorism, or war could also materially adversely affect our ability to raise capital. The continuation of these developments may subject our construction and our operations to increased risks, as well as increased costs, and, depending on their ultimate magnitude, could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

Existing and future environmental and similar laws and governmental regulations could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating costs or construction costs and restrictions.

Our business is and will be subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations that regulate and restrict, among other things, discharges to air, land and water, with particular respect to the protection of the environment and natural resources; the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous waste and petroleum products; and remediation associated with the release of hazardous substances. Many of these laws and regulations, such as the CAA, the Oil Pollution Act, the CWA

22



and the RCRA, and analogous state laws and regulations, restrict or prohibit the types, quantities and concentration of substances that can be released into the environment in connection with the construction and operation of our facilities, and require us to maintain permits and provide governmental authorities with access to our facilities for inspection and reports related to our compliance. In addition, certain environmental laws and regulations authorize regulators having jurisdiction over the Sabine Pass LNG terminal to issue compliance orders, which may restrict or limit operations or increase compliance or operating costs. Violation of these laws and regulations could lead to substantial liabilities, fines and penalties or to capital expenditures related to pollution control equipment that could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects. Federal and state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or the lawfulness of the original conduct, for the release of certain types or quantities of hazardous substances into the environment. As the owner and operator of our facilities, we could be liable for the costs of cleaning up hazardous substances released into the environment at or from our facilities and for resulting damage to natural resources.

In October 2015, the EPA promulgated a final rule to implement the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which is designed to reduce GHG emissions from power plants in the United States.  In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the final rule, effectively suspending the duty to comply with the rule until certain legal challenges are resolved. In March 2017, President Trump directed EPA via Executive Order to review and determine whether it is appropriate to revise or rescind the Clean Power Plan. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan after concluding the October 2015 final rule exceeds EPA’s statutory authority under the CAA. The October 2017 proposal does not include regulations to replace the Clean Power Plan and EPA stated in the October 2017 proposal that it has not determined whether it will issue replacement regulations to regulate GHG emissions from existing EGUs. The Trump Administration announced in June 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Accord, an international agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change under which the Obama Administration committed the United States to reducing its economy-wide GHG emission by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Other federal and state initiatives may be considered in the future to address GHG emissions through, for example, United States treaty commitments, direct regulation, a carbon emissions tax, or cap-and-trade programs. Such initiatives, including a future replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan could affect the demand for or cost of natural gas, which we consume at our terminals, or could increase compliance costs for our operations.

Other future legislation and regulations, such as those relating to the transportation and security of LNG imported to or exported from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal could cause additional expenditures, restrictions and delays in our business and to our proposed construction, the extent of which cannot be predicted and which may require us to limit substantially, delay or cease operations in some circumstances. Revised, reinterpreted or additional laws and regulations that result in increased compliance costs or additional operating or construction costs and restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

The Creole Trail Pipeline and its FERC gas tariff are subject to FERC regulation.

The Creole Trail Pipeline is subject to regulation by the FERC under the NGA and the NGPA. The FERC regulates the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, including the construction and operation of pipelines, the rates, terms and conditions of service and abandonment of facilities. Under the NGA, the rates charged by CTPL must be just and reasonable, and CTPL is prohibited from unduly preferring or unreasonably discriminating against any person with respect to pipeline rates or terms and conditions of service.

In addition, as a natural gas market participant, should CTPL fail to comply with all applicable FERC-administered statutes, rules, regulations and orders, CTPL could be subject to substantial penalties and fines. Under the EPAct, the FERC has civil penalty authority under the NGA and the NGPA to impose penalties for current violations of up to $1.3 million per day for each violation.
A major health and safety incident relating to our business could be costly in terms of potential liabilities and reputational damage.

Health and safety performance is critical to the success of all areas of our business. Any failure in health and safety performance may result in personal harm or injury, penalties for non-compliance with relevant regulatory requirements or litigation, and a failure that results in a significant health and safety incident is likely to be costly in terms of potential liabilities. Such a failure could generate public concern and have a corresponding impact on our reputation and our relationships with relevant regulatory agencies and local communities, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

23




Pipeline safety integrity programs and repairs may impose significant costs and liabilities on us.

The PHMSA requires pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate certain areas along their pipelines and to take additional measures to protect pipeline segments located in “high consequence areas” where a leak or rupture could potentially do the most harm. As an operator, CTPL is required to:

perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;
identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments that could impact a high consequence area;
improve data collection, integration and analysis;
repair and remediate the pipeline as necessary; and
implement preventative and mitigating actions.
CTPL is required to maintain pipeline integrity testing programs that are intended to assess pipeline integrity. Any repair, remediation, preventative or mitigating actions may require significant capital and operating expenditures. Should CTPL fail to comply with the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety’s rules and related regulations and orders, CTPL could be subject to significant penalties and fines.

Our business could be materially and adversely affected if we lose the right to situate the Creole Trail Pipeline on property owned by third parties.

We do not own the land on which the Creole Trail Pipeline is situated, and we are subject to the possibility of increased costs to retain necessary land use rights. If we were to lose these rights or be required to relocate the Creole Trail Pipeline, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Our lack of diversification could have an adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.
 
Substantially all of our anticipated revenue in 2018 will be dependent upon one facility, the Sabine Pass LNG terminal located in southern Louisiana. Due to our lack of asset and geographic diversification, an adverse development at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, including the related pipeline, or in the LNG industry, would have a significantly greater impact on our financial condition and operating results than if we maintained more diverse assets and operating areas.

If we do not make acquisitions or implement capital expansion projects on economically acceptable terms, our future growth and our ability to increase distributions to our unitholders will be limited.
 
Our ability to grow depends on our ability to make accretive acquisitions or implement accretive capital expansion projects, such as the Liquefaction Project. We may be unable to make accretive acquisitions or implement accretive capital expansion projects for any of the following reasons:

if we are unable to identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase contracts with them;
if we are unable to identify attractive capital expansion projects or negotiate acceptable engineering procurement and construction arrangements for them;
if we are unable to obtain necessary governmental approvals;
if we are unable to obtain financing for the acquisitions or capital expansion projects on economically acceptable terms, or at all;
if we are unable to secure adequate customer commitments to use the acquired or expansion facilities; or
if we are outbid by competitors.
If we are unable to make accretive acquisitions or implement accretive capital expansion projects, then our future growth and ability to increase distributions to our unitholders will be limited.


24



We intend to pursue acquisitions of additional LNG terminals, natural gas pipelines and related assets in the future, either directly from Cheniere or from third parties. However, Cheniere is not obligated to offer us any of these assets other than, in certain circumstances under an investors rights agreement with Blackstone CQP Holdco, its liquefaction project at Corpus Christi, Texas. If Cheniere does offer us the opportunity to purchase assets, we may not be able to successfully negotiate a purchase and sale agreement and related agreements, we may not be able to obtain any required financing for such purchase and we may not be able to obtain any required governmental and third-party consents. The decision whether or not to accept such offer, and to negotiate the terms of such offer, will be made by the conflicts committee of our general partner, which may decline the opportunity to accept such offer for a variety of reasons, including a determination that the acquisition of the assets at the proposed purchase price would not result in an increase, or a sufficient increase, in our adjusted operating surplus per unit within an appropriate timeframe.
 
If we make acquisitions, such acquisitions could adversely affect our business and ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
 
If we make any acquisitions, they will involve potential risks, including:

an inability to integrate successfully the businesses that we acquire with our existing business;
a decrease in our liquidity by using a significant portion of our available cash or borrowing capacity to finance the acquisition;
the assumption of unknown liabilities;
limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller;
mistaken assumptions about the cash generated, or to be generated, by the business acquired or the overall costs of equity or debt;
the diversion of management’s and employees’ attention from other business concerns; and
unforeseen difficulties encountered in operating new business segments or in new geographic areas.
If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and operating results may change significantly, and our unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that we will consider in determining the application of our future funds and other resources. In addition, if we issue additional units in connection with future growth, our existing unitholders’ interest in us will be diluted, and distributions to our unitholders may be reduced. 

We may incur impairments to long-lived assets.
 
We test our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of these assets may not be recoverable. Significant negative industry or economic trends, reduced estimates of future cash flows for our business or disruptions to our business could lead to an impairment charge of our long-lived assets. Our valuation methodology for assessing impairment requires management to make judgments and assumptions based on historical experience and to rely heavily on projections of future operating performance. Projections of future operating results and cash flows may vary significantly from results. In addition, if our analysis results in an impairment to our long-lived assets, we may be required to record a charge to earnings in our Consolidated Financial Statements during a period in which such impairment is determined to exist, which may negatively impact our operating results.

Risks Relating to Our Cash Distributions
 
We may not be successful in our efforts to maintain or increase our cash available for distribution to cover the distributions on our common units.

We historically paid the initial quarterly distribution of $0.425 on each of our common units and the related distribution on the general partner units, and did not pay any distributions on the subordinated units. For the quarters ended September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2017, we paid a distribution of $0.44 and declared a distribution of $0.50, respectively, on each of our common and subordinated units and the related distribution on the general partner units. For the quarter ended December 31, 2017 we also declared a related distribution to the holder of our incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”). As of December 31, 2017, we had 348.6 million common units outstanding. The aggregate initial quarterly distribution on these common units and the related general partner units was approximately $99 million per year. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we paid distributions of $294 million on these common units and the related general partner units including distributions to the holder of our subordinated units.

25




The amount of cash that we can distribute on our common units principally will depend upon the amount of cash that we generate from our existing operations, which will be based on, among other things:

performance by counterparties of their obligations under the SPAs;
performance by SPL of its obligations under the SPAs;
performance by counterparties of their obligations under the TUAs;
performance by SPLNG of its obligations under the TUAs;
performance by, and the level of cash receipts received from, Cheniere Marketing under the Amended and Restated VCRA; and
the level of our operating costs, including payments to our general partner and its affiliates.
In addition, the actual amount of cash that we will have available for distribution will depend on other factors such as:

the restrictions contained in our debt agreements and our debt service requirements, including our ability to pay distributions under our 2016 CQP Credit Facilities and the ability of SPL to pay distributions to us under its working capital facility and senior notes;
the costs and capital requirements of acquisitions, if any;
fluctuations in our working capital needs;
our ability to borrow for working capital or other purposes; and
the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by our general partner.
We may not be successful in our efforts to maintain or increase our cash available for distribution to cover the distributions on our units. Any reductions in distributions to our unitholders because of a shortfall in cash flow or other events could result in a decrease of the quarterly distribution on our common units below the initial quarterly distribution. Any portion of the initial quarterly distribution that is not distributed on our common units will accrue and be paid to the common unitholders in accordance with our partnership agreement, if at all.

We will need to refinance, extend or otherwise satisfy our substantial indebtedness, and principal amortization or other terms of our future indebtedness could limit our ability to pay or increase distributions to our unitholders.
 
As of December 31, 2017, we had $16.2 billion of total consolidated indebtedness (before debt discounts, debt premiums and unamortized debt issuance costs). We anticipate incurring additional consolidated indebtedness in the future, including the issuance of additional notes by us or our subsidiaries, including SPL. Any additional indebtedness incurred could be at higher interest rates and have different maturity dates and more restrictive covenants than our current outstanding indebtedness. Approximately $1.1 billion of our indebtedness will mature in 2020, $2.0 billion will mature in 2021, $1.0 billion will mature in 2022, $11.3 billion will mature between 2023 and 2028 and $0.8 billion will mature in 2037. We are not generally required to make principal payments on any of our long-term indebtedness prior to maturity other than our 2016 CQP Credit Facilities. Our ability to refinance, extend or otherwise satisfy our indebtedness, and the principal amortization, interest rate and other terms on which we may be able to do so, will depend, among other things, on our then contracted or otherwise anticipated future cash flows available for debt service. SPLNG's TUAs with Total and Chevron will expire in 2029 unless extended. SPL’s SPA with BG will expire in 2036 unless extended and SPL’s SPAs with Gas Natural Fenosa and KOGAS will expire in 2037 unless extended. Our ability to pay or increase distributions to our unitholders in future years could be limited by principal amortization, interest rate or other terms of our future indebtedness. If we are unable to refinance, extend or otherwise satisfy our debt as it matures, that would have a material adverse effect on our business, contracts, financial condition, operating results, cash flow, liquidity and prospects.

26



Our subsidiaries may be restricted under the terms of their indebtedness from making distributions to us under certain circumstances, which may limit our ability to pay or increase distributions to our unitholders and could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common units.
 
The agreements governing our indebtedness restrict payments that our subsidiaries can make to us in certain events and limit the indebtedness that our subsidiaries can incur. For example, SPL is restricted from making distributions under the agreements governing its indebtedness generally until, among other requirements, deposits are made into debt service reserve accounts and a debt service coverage ratio of 1.25:1.00 is satisfied.

If our subsidiaries are unable to pay distributions to us or incur indebtedness as a result of the foregoing restrictions in agreements governing their indebtedness, we may be inhibited in our ability to pay or increase distributions to our unitholders.

Restrictions in agreements governing our subsidiaries’ indebtedness may prevent our subsidiaries from engaging in certain beneficial transactions.
 
In addition to restrictions on the ability of SPL to make distributions or incur additional indebtedness, the agreements governing their indebtedness also contain various other covenants that may prevent them from engaging in beneficial transactions, including limitations on their ability to:

make certain investments;
purchase, redeem or retire equity interests;
issue preferred stock;
sell or transfer assets;
incur liens;
enter into transactions with affiliates;
consolidate, merge, sell or lease all or substantially all of its assets; and
enter into sale and leaseback transactions.
Management fees and cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce cash available to pay distributions to our unitholders.

We pay significant management fees to our general partner and its affiliates and reimburse them for expenses incurred on our behalf, which reduces our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. See Note 12—Related Party Transactions of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of these fees and expenses. Our general partner and its affiliates will also be entitled to reimbursement for all other direct expenses that they incur on our behalf. The payment of fees to our general partner and its affiliates and the reimbursement of expenses could adversely affect our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders.
 
The amount of cash that we have available for distributions to our unitholders will depend primarily on our cash flow and not solely on profitability.
 
The amount of cash that we will have available for distributions will depend primarily on our cash flow, including cash reserves and working capital or other borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses, and we may not make cash distributions during periods when we record net income. Any reduction in the amount of cash available for distributions could impact our ability to pay quarterly distributions to our unitholders.
 
We may not be able to maintain or increase the distributions on our common and subordinated units unless we are able to make accretive acquisitions or implement accretive capital expansion projects, which may require us to obtain one or more sources of funding.
 
We may not be able to make accretive acquisitions or implement accretive capital expansion projects, including our liquefaction facilities, that would result in sufficient cash flow to allow us to maintain or increase common and subordinated

27



unitholder distributions. To fund acquisitions or capital expansion projects, we will need to pursue a variety of sources of funding, including debt and/or equity financings. Our ability to obtain these or other types of financing will depend, in part, on factors beyond our control, such as our ability to obtain commitments from users of the facilities to be acquired or constructed, the status of various debt and equity markets at the time financing is sought and such markets’ view of our industry and prospects at such time. Any restrictive lending conditions in the U.S. credit markets may make it more time consuming and expensive for us to obtain financing, if we can obtain such financing at all. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain financing for acquisitions or capital expansion projects on terms that are acceptable to us, if at all.

Risks Relating to an Investment in Us and Our Common Units
 
Our general partner and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary duties, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our unitholders.
 
Cheniere owns and, indirectly through Cheniere Holdings, controls our general partner, which has sole responsibility for conducting our business and managing our operations. Some of our general partner’s directors are also directors of Cheniere, and certain of our general partner’s officers are officers of Cheniere. Therefore, conflicts of interest may arise between Cheniere and its affiliates, including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of us and our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:
neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires Cheniere to pursue a business strategy that favors us. Cheniere’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to make these decisions in favor of the owners of Cheniere, which may be contrary to our interests:
our general partner controls the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations between us, on the one hand, and Cheniere, on the other hand, including provisions governing administrative services and acquisitions;
our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as Cheniere and its affiliates, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duty to us and our unitholders;
our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty;
Cheniere is not limited in its ability to compete with us. Please read “Cheniere is not restricted from competing with us and is free to develop, operate and dispose of, and is currently developing, LNG facilities, pipelines and other assets without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to develop or acquire those assets”;
our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities, and the establishment, increase or decrease in the amounts of reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders;
our general partner determines the amount and timing of any capital expenditures and whether a capital expenditure is a maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces operating surplus, or an expansion capital expenditure, which does not reduce operating surplus. This determination can affect the amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders and the ability of the subordinated units to convert to common units;
our partnership agreement does not restrict our general partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered on terms that are fair and reasonable to us or entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf;
our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our contractual and other obligations and, in some circumstances, is entitled to be indemnified by us;
our general partner may exercise its limited right to call and purchase common units if it and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units; and
our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.
We expect that there will be additional agreements or arrangements with Cheniere and its affiliates, including future interconnection, natural gas balancing and storage agreements with one or more Cheniere-affiliated natural gas pipelines, services

28



agreements, as well as other agreements and arrangements that cannot now be anticipated. In those circumstances where additional contracts with Cheniere and its affiliates may be necessary or desirable, additional conflicts of interest will be involved.

In the event Cheniere favors its interests over our interests, we may have less available cash to make distributions on our units than we otherwise would have if Cheniere had favored our interests.

Cheniere is not restricted from competing with us and is free to develop, operate and dispose of, and is currently developing, LNG facilities, pipelines and other assets without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to develop or acquire those assets.
 
Cheniere and its affiliates are not prohibited from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. Cheniere may acquire, construct or dispose of its liquefaction project at Corpus Christi, Texas, its pipelines or any other assets without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or construct any of those assets, other than, in certain circumstances under an investors rights agreement with Blackstone CQP Holdco, its liquefaction project at Corpus Christi, Texas. In addition, under our partnership agreement, the doctrine of corporate opportunity, or any analogous doctrine, will not apply to Cheniere and its affiliates. As a result, neither Cheniere nor any of its affiliates will have any obligation to present new business opportunities to us, they may take advantage of such opportunities themselves and they may enter into commercial arrangements with respect to the liquefaction project at Corpus Christi, Texas that might otherwise have been entered into with respect to Train 6. Cheniere also has significantly greater resources and experience than we have, which may make it more difficult for us to compete with Cheniere and its affiliates with respect to commercial activities or acquisition candidates.
 
Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies available to our unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
 
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:
permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner. Examples include the exercise of its limited call right, the exercise of its rights to transfer or vote the units it owns, the exercise of its registration rights and its determination whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of the partnership or amendment to the partnership agreement;
provides that our general partner will not have any liability to us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner, as long as it acted in good faith, meaning that it believed the decision was in the best interests of our partnership;
generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our general partner may consider the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to us;
provides that our general partner, its affiliates and their officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us or our limited partners for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our general partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that such conduct was criminal; and
provides that in resolving conflicts of interest, it will be presumed that in making its decision the conflicts committee or the general partner acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or us, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.
By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder will become bound by the provisions of our partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.
 

29



Holders of our common units have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its directors, which could reduce the price at which our common units trade.
 
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Our unitholders will have no right to elect our general partner or its board of directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of directors of our general partner is chosen entirely by affiliates of Cheniere. As a result, the price at which the common units will trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a control premium in the trading price.

Even if our unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot initially remove our general partner without its consent.
 
The vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of all outstanding common units and subordinated units (including any units owned by our general partner and its affiliates), voting together as a single class is required to remove our general partner. An affiliate of Cheniere owns 48.6% of our outstanding common units and subordinated units, but it is contractually prohibited from voting our units that it holds in favor of the removal of our general partner. If our general partner is removed without cause during the subordination period and units held by our general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of that removal, all remaining subordinated units will automatically be converted into common units and any existing arrearages on the common units will be extinguished. A removal of our general partner under these circumstances would adversely affect the common units by prematurely eliminating their distribution and liquidation preference over the subordinated units, which would otherwise have continued until we had met certain distribution and performance tests. Cause is narrowly defined in our partnership agreement to mean that a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final, non-appealable judgment finding our general partner liable for actual fraud or willful misconduct in its capacity as our general partner. Cause does not include most cases of poor management of the business, so the removal of the general partner because of the unitholders’ dissatisfaction with our general partner’s performance in managing our partnership will most likely result in the termination of the subordination period and conversion of all subordinated units to common units.
 
Control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.
 
Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the owners of our general partner from transferring all or a portion of their respective ownership interest in our general partner to a third party. The new owners of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers of our general partner with its own choices and thereby influence the decisions taken by the board of directors and officers.
 
Our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of unitholders (other than our general partner and its affiliates) owning 20% or more of any class of our units.
 
Our partnership agreement restricts unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner and its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any matter. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.

Our partnership agreement prohibits a unitholder (other than our general partner and its affiliates) who acquires 15% or more of our limited partner units without the approval of our general partner from engaging in a business combination with us for three years unless certain approvals are obtained. This provision could discourage a change of control that our unitholders may favor, which could negatively affect the price of our common units.
 
Our partnership agreement effectively adopts Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (“DGCL”). Section 203 of the DGCL as it applies to us prevents an interested unitholder defined as a person (other than our general partner and its affiliates) who owns 15% or more of our outstanding limited partner units from engaging in business combinations with us for three years following the time such person becomes an interested unitholder unless certain approvals are obtained. Section 203 broadly defines “business combination” to encompass a wide variety of transactions with or caused by an interested unitholder, including mergers, asset sales and other transactions in which the interested unitholder receives a benefit on other than a pro rata basis with other unitholders. This provision of our partnership agreement could have an anti-takeover effect

30



with respect to transactions not approved in advance by our general partner, including discouraging takeover attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for our common units.

Our unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.
 
A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. We are organized under Delaware law, and we conduct business in other states. As a limited partner in a partnership organized under Delaware law, holders of our common units could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right or the exercise of the right by our unitholders as a group to remove or replace our general partner, to approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business. In addition, limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly established in many jurisdictions.
 
Our unitholders may have liability to repay distributions wrongfully made.
 
Under certain circumstances, our unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that, for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, partners who received such a distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the partnership for the distribution amount. Liabilities to partners on account of their partner interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.
 
We may issue additional units without approval of our unitholders, which would dilute their ownership interest in us.
 
At any time during the subordination period, with the approval of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner, we may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of any type without the approval of our unitholders. After the subordination period, we may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of any type without limitation of any kind. The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:
our unitholders’ proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;
the amount of cash available per unit to pay distributions may decrease;
because a lower percentage of total outstanding units will be subordinated units, the risk will increase that a shortfall in the payment of the initial quarterly distributions will be borne by our common unitholders;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit may be diminished; and
the market price of the common units may decline.
The market price of our common units has fluctuated significantly in the past and is likely to fluctuate in the future. Our unitholders could lose all or part of their investment.

The market price of our common units has historically experienced and may continue to experience volatility. For example, during the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, the market price of our common units ranged between $19.22 and $34.55. Such fluctuations may continue as a result of a variety of factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
our quarterly distributions;
domestic and worldwide supply of and demand for natural gas and corresponding fluctuations in the price of natural gas;
fluctuations in our quarterly or annual financial results or those of other companies in our industry;
issuance of additional equity securities which causes further dilution to our unitholders;
sales of a high volume of units of our common units by our unitholders;

31



operating and unit price performance of companies that investors deem comparable to us;
events affecting other companies that the market deems comparable to us;
changes in government regulation or proposals applicable to us;
actual or potential non-performance by any customer or a counterparty under any agreement;
announcements made by us or our competitors of significant contracts;
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;
general conditions in the industries in which we operate;
general economic conditions;
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units or changes in financial or other estimates by analysts; and
other factors described in these “Risk Factors.”
In addition, the United States securities markets have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. These fluctuations have often been unrelated to the operating performance of companies in these markets. Market fluctuations and broad market, economic and industry factors may negatively affect the price of our common units, regardless of our operating performance. If we were to be the object of securities class litigation as a result of volatility in our common unit price or for other reasons, it could result in substantial diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could negatively affect our financial results.

Affiliates of our general partner or affiliates of Blackstone may sell limited partner units, which sales could have an adverse impact on the trading price of our common units.
 
Sales by us or any of our affiliated unitholders or affiliates of Blackstone of a substantial number of our common units or our subordinated units, or the perception that such sales might occur, could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units or could impair our ability to obtain capital through an offering of equity securities. Cheniere Holdings owns 104,488,671 common units and 135,383,831 subordinated units. All of the subordinated units will convert into common units at the end of the subordination period and may convert earlier. We filed a registration statement for the resale of 202,450,687 common units owned by Blackstone and its affiliates. Any sales of these units could have an adverse impact on the price of our common units.

Risks Relating to Tax Matters
 
Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.
 
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, we will be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.
 
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate and would likely pay state and local income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate dividends, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, the cash available for distributions to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.
 
Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to entity-level taxation for federal income tax purposes, then the initial quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts will be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.
 

32



If we were subjected to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation by individual states, it would reduce our cash available for distribution.
 
Changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity-level taxation by individual states. Because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of any such taxes may substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our unitholders and, therefore, negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units. Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state or local income tax purposes, the initial quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.
 
The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.
 
The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time. For example, from time to time the U.S. President and members of the U.S. Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that would affect publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units. Further, final Treasury Regulations under Section 7704(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, recently published in the Federal Register interpret the scope of qualifying income requirements for publicly traded partnerships by providing industry-specific guidance. We do not believe the final Treasury Regulations affect our ability to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.

In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”) enacted December 22, 2017, makes significant changes to the federal income tax rules applicable to both individuals and entities, including changes to the tax rate on an individual or other non-corporate unitholder’s allocable share of certain income from a publicly traded partnership. The TCJA is complex and lacks administrative guidance, thus, the impact of certain aspects of its provisions on us or an investment in our common units is currently unclear. Unitholders should consult their tax advisor regarding the TCJA and its effect on an investment in our common units.

Any changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof (including administrative guidance relating to the TCJA) may or may not be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise adversely affect us. We are unable to predict whether any changes, or other proposals, will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes or interpretations thereof could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred.
 
We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred.  Although final Treasury Regulations allow publicly traded partnerships to use a similar monthly simplifying convention to allocate tax items among transferor and transferee unitholders, such tax items must be prorated on a daily basis and these regulations do not specifically authorize all aspects of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to successfully challenge this method or new Treasury Regulations were issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.
 
A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions that we take, may adversely impact the market for our common units, and the costs of any contest will be borne by our unitholders and our general partner.
 
The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions that we take, even positions taken with advice of counsel. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions that we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions that we take. Any contest with the IRS may adversely impact the taxable income reported to our unitholders and the income taxes they are required to pay. As a result, any such contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which our common units trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS, principally legal, accounting and related fees, will result in a reduction in cash available for distribution to our unitholders and our general partner and thus will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner. 

33




If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us, in which case we may either pay the taxes directly to the IRS or elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account and pay any resulting taxes. If we bear such payment our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. To the extent possible under the new rules, our general partner may either pay the taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, elect to issue a revised Schedule K-1 to each unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Although our general partner may elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account and pay any resulting taxes (including applicable penalties or interest) in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, there can be no assurance that such election will be practical, permissible or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own common units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

Our unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.
 
Because our unitholders will be treated as partners to whom we will allocate taxable income, which could be different in amount from the cash that we distribute, our unitholders will be required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us. Our unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability which results from their share of our taxable income.
 
We intend to allocate items of income, gain, loss and deduction among the holders of our common units and subordinated units on or after the date that the subordination period ends to ensure that common units issued in exchange for our subordinated units have the same economic and federal income tax characteristics as our other common units. Any such allocation of items of our income or gain to unitholders, which may include allocations to holders of our common units, would not be accompanied by a distribution of cash to such unitholders. In addition, any such allocation of items of deduction or loss to specific unitholders (for example, to the holder of the subordinated units) would effectively reduce the amount of items of deduction or loss that will be allocated to other unitholders.
 
Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be different than expected.
 
If our unitholders sell any of their common units, they will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of the unitholders’ allocable share of our net taxable income decrease the unitholders’ tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect, become taxable income to the unitholder if they sell such units at a price greater than their tax basis in those units, even if the price received is less than their original cost. A substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income due to the potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. In addition, because the amount realized may include a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, a unitholder that sells common units may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash received from the sale.
 
Unitholders may be subject to limitations on their ability to deduct interest expense incurred by us.

In general, we are entitled to a deduction for interest paid or accrued on indebtedness properly allocable to our trade or business during our taxable year. However, under the TCJA, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, our deduction for “business interest” is limited to the sum of our business interest income plus 30% of our “adjusted taxable income.” For the purposes of this limitation, our adjusted taxable income is computed without regard to any business interest expense or business interest income, and in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion. Any interest disallowed may be carried forward and deducted in future years by the unitholder from

34



his share of our “excess taxable income,” which is generally equal to the excess of 30% of our adjusted taxable income over the amount of our deduction for business interest for such future taxable year, subject to certain restrictions. 

Tax-exempt entities face unique tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
 
Investments in common units by tax-exempt entities, such as individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to unitholders who are organizations exempt from federal income tax, including individual retirement accounts and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Further, with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, a tax-exempt entity with more than one unrelated trade or business (including by attribution from investment in a partnership such as ours that is engaged in one or more unrelated trade or business) is required to compute the unrelated business taxable income of such tax-exempt entity separately with respect to each such trade or business (including for purposes of determining any net operating loss deduction). As a result, for years beginning after December 31, 2017, it may not be possible for tax-exempt entities to utilize losses from an investment in our partnership to offset unrelated business taxable income from another unrelated trade or business and vice versa. Tax-exempt entities should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units.
 
Non-U.S. unitholders will be subject to U.S. taxes and withholding with respect to their income and gain from owning our common units.

Non-U.S. unitholders are generally taxed and subject to income tax filing requirements by the United States on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (“effectively connected income”). A unitholder’s share of our income, gain, loss and deduction, and any gain from the sale or disposition of our common units will generally be considered to be “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business and subject to U.S. federal income tax. Additionally, distributions to a non-U.S. unitholder will be subject to withholding at the highest applicable effective tax rate.

The TCJA imposes a withholding obligation of 10% of the amount realized upon a non-U.S. unitholder’s sale or disposition of common units. The IRS has temporarily suspended the application of the withholding requirements on sales of publicly traded interests, including our common units, pending promulgation of regulations or other guidance. It is not clear if or when such regulations or other guidance will be issued. Non-U.S. unitholders should consult a tax advisor before investing in our common units. 

We will treat each holder of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual common units held. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.
 
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, we adopt depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform with all aspects of applicable Treasury Regulations.

A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our unitholders. It also could affect the timing of those tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to a unitholder’s tax returns.
 
Our unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements as a result of an investment in our common units.
 
In addition to federal income taxes, our unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property, even if the unitholder does not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Furthermore, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own property or conduct business in additional states or foreign countries that impose a personal tax or an entity level tax. Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of our unitholders to file all United States federal, state and local tax returns.
 

35



We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining a unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methodologies or the resulting allocations, and such a challenge could adversely affect the value of our common units.

In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our assets. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates ourselves using a methodology based on the market value of our common units as a means to determine the fair market value of our assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the timing or amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from our unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.
 
A unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units) may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, the unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because there are no specific rules governing the U.S. federal income tax consequence of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned common units, the unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition.  Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder, and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income.  Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a securities loan are urged to consult with their tax advisor to determine whether it is advisable to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing and loaning their common units.

ITEM 1B.
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
 
None.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We may in the future be involved as a party to various legal proceedings, which are incidental to the ordinary course of business. We regularly analyze current information and, as necessary, provide accruals for probable liabilities on the eventual disposition of these matters.

LDEQ Matter

Certain of our subsidiaries are in discussions with the LDEQ to resolve self-reported deviations arising from operation of the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and the commissioning of the Liquefaction Project, and relating to certain requirements under its Title V Permit. The matter involves deviations self-reported to LDEQ pursuant to the Title V Permit and covering the time period from January 1, 2012 through March 25, 2016. On April 11, 2016, certain of our subsidiaries received a Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty (the “Compliance Order”) from LDEQ covering deviations self-reported during that time period. Certain of our subsidiaries continue to work with LDEQ to resolve the matters identified in the Compliance Order. We do not expect that any ultimate sanction will have a material adverse impact on our financial results.

PHMSA Matter

In February 2018, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order (the “CAO”) to SPL in connection with a minor LNG leak from one tank and minor vapor release from a second tank at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal.  These two tanks have been taken out of operational service while we undergo analysis, repair and remediation pursuant to the CAO. We are working with PHMSA

36


and other appropriate regulatory authorities to resolve the matters identified in the CAO.  We do not expect that the CAO and related analysis, repair and remediation will have a material adverse impact on our financial results or operations.

ITEM 4.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Not applicable.


37


PART II

ITEM 5.
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
 
Our common units began trading on the NYSE American under the symbol “CQP” commencing with our initial public offering on March 21, 2007. The table below presents the high and low sales prices per common unit, as reported by the NYSE American, and cash distributions to common unitholders for each quarter during 2017 and 2016.
 
 
High
 
Low
 
Cash Distributions Per Common Unit (1)
 
Cash Distributions Per Subordinated Unit
 
Cash Distributions
Per Class B Unit (2)
2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
First Quarter
 
$
33.33

 
$
27.92

 
$
0.425

 
$

 
$

Second Quarter
 
33.47

 
29.91

 
0.425

 

 

Third Quarter
 
32.61

 
26.41

 
0.440

 
0.440

 

Fourth Quarter (3)
 
29.88

 
26.68

 
0.500

 
0.500

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

First Quarter
 
$
30.78

 
$
19.22

 
$
0.425

 
$

 
$

Second Quarter
 
31.49

 
26.82

 
0.425

 

 

Third Quarter
 
30.12

 
25.87

 
0.425

 

 

Fourth Quarter
 
29.87

 
25.97

 
0.425

 

 

 
(1)
We also paid cash distributions to our general partner, with respect to its 2% general partner interest.
(2)
Class B units were not entitled to cash distributions except in the event of a liquidation (or merger, combination or sale of substantially all of our assets).
(3)
We also paid cash distributions on the IDRs held by the general partner.
 
A distribution for the quarter ended December 31, 2017 of $0.50 per common and subordinated unit was paid on February 14, 2018. In addition, we paid cash distributions to our general partner with respect to its 2% general partner interest and on the IDRs held by the general partner.
 
As of February 15, 2018, we had 348.6 million common units outstanding held by approximately 10 record owners.
 
We consider cash distributions to unitholders on a quarterly basis, although there is no assurance as to the future cash distributions since they are dependent upon future earnings, cash flows, capital requirements, financial condition and other factors. The 2016 CQP Credit Facilities described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations” may limit our ability to make distributions.
 
Upon the closing of our initial public offering, Cheniere received 135.4 million subordinated units. On August 2, 2017, the 45.3 million Class B units held by Cheniere Holdings and 100.0 million Class B units held by Blackstone CQP Holdco mandatorily converted into common units in accordance with the terms of our partnership agreement. Below is a description of our cash distribution policy regarding common and subordinated units. References therein to “unitholders” made in the context of the recipients of quarterly cash distributions refer to our common unitholders and subordinated unitholders.
 
Cash Distribution Policy

Our cash distribution policy is consistent with the terms of our partnership agreement, which requires that we distribute all of our available cash quarterly.


38


Subordination Period
 
During the subordination period, the common units will have the right to receive distributions of available cash from operating surplus in an amount equal to the initial quarterly distribution of $0.425 per quarter, plus any arrearages in the payment of the initial quarterly distribution on the common units from prior quarters, before any distributions of available cash from operating surplus may be made on the subordinated units. Cheniere Holdings owns all of the 135.4 million subordinated units, representing 28.0% of the limited partner interests in us as of December 31, 2017. These units are deemed “subordinated” because for a period of time, referred to as the subordination period, the subordinated units will not be entitled to receive any distributions until after the common units have received the initial quarterly distribution plus any arrearages from prior quarters. Furthermore, no arrearages will be paid on the subordinated units. The practical effect of the subordination period is to increase the likelihood that during this period there will be sufficient available cash to pay the initial quarterly distribution on the common units.
 
As a result of the assignment of Cheniere Marketing’s TUA to Cheniere Investments, effective July 1, 2010, our available cash for distributions was reduced. Therefore, we did not pay distributions on our subordinated units with respect to the quarter ended June 30, 2010 through the quarter ended June 30, 2017, but resumed making cash distributions with respect to the quarter ended September 30, 2017.
 
Definition of Subordination Period  
The subordination period will extend until the first business day following the distribution of available cash to partners in respect of any quarter that each of the following occurs: 
distributions of available cash from operating surplus on each of the outstanding common units, subordinated units and any other outstanding units that are senior or equal in right of distribution to the subordinated units equaled or exceeded the sum of the initial quarterly distributions on all of the outstanding common units, subordinated units, general partner units and any other outstanding units that are senior or equal in right of distribution to the subordinated units for each of the three consecutive, non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that date;
the “adjusted operating surplus” (as defined below) generated during each of the three consecutive, non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that date equaled or exceeded the sum of the initial quarterly distributions on all of the outstanding common units, subordinated units, general partner units and any other outstanding units that are senior or equal in right of distribution to the subordinated units during those periods on a fully diluted basis; and
there are no arrearages in payment of the initial quarterly distribution on the common units.
Expiration of the Subordination Period  
When the subordination period expires, each outstanding subordinated unit will convert into one common unit and will then participate pro rata with the other common units in distributions of available cash. In addition, if the unitholders remove our general partner other than for cause and units held by the general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of such removal:  
the subordination period will end and each subordinated unit will immediately convert into one common unit;
any existing arrearages in payment of the initial quarterly distribution on the common units will be extinguished; and
the general partner will have the right to convert its general partner units and its IDRs into common units or to receive cash in exchange for those interests.
Early Conversion of Subordinated Units  

The subordination period will automatically terminate and all of the subordinated units will convert into common units on a one-for-one basis on the first business day following the distribution of available cash to partners in respect of any quarter that each of the following occurs: 

in connection with distributions of available cash from operating surplus, the amount of such distributions constituting “contracted adjusted operating surplus” (as defined below) on each outstanding common unit, subordinated unit and any other outstanding unit that is senior or equal in right of distribution to the subordinated units equaled or exceeded $0.638 (150% of the initial quarterly distribution) for each quarter in the four-quarter period immediately preceding that date;

39


the contracted adjusted operating surplus generated during each quarter in the four-quarter period immediately preceding that date equaled or exceeded the sum of a distribution of $0.638 (150% of the initial quarterly distribution) on all of the outstanding common units, subordinated units, general partner units, any other units that are senior or equal in right of distribution to the subordinated units, and any other equity securities that are junior to the subordinated units that the board of directors of our general partner deems to be appropriate for the calculation, after consultation with management of our general partner, on a fully diluted basis; and
there are no arrearages in payment of the initial quarterly distribution on the common units
Definition of Adjusted Operating Surplus
 
We define adjusted operating surplus in our partnership agreement, and for any period, it generally means: 

operating surplus generated with respect to that period; less
any net increase in working capital borrowings with respect to that period; less
any net reduction in cash reserves for operating expenditures with respect to that period not relating to an operating expenditure made with respect to that period; plus
any net decrease in working capital borrowings with respect to that period; plus
any net increase in cash reserves for operating expenditures with respect to that period required by any debt instrument for the repayment of principal, interest or premium.
Adjusted operating surplus is intended to reflect the cash generated from operations during a particular period and therefore excludes the $30 million operating surplus “basket,” net increases in working capital borrowings, net drawdowns of reserves of cash generated in prior periods.

Definition of Contracted Adjusted Operating Surplus

We define contracted adjusted operating surplus in our partnership agreement and it:

generally means adjusted operating surplus derived solely from SPAs and TUAs, in each case, with a minimum term of three years with counterparties who are not affiliates of Cheniere; and
excludes revenues and expenses attributable to the portion of payments made under the SPAs related to the final settlement price for the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Henry Hub natural gas futures contract for the month in which the relevant cargo’s delivery window is scheduled. 
General Partner Units and Incentive Distribution Rights
 
IDRs represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available cash from operating surplus in excess of the initial quarterly distribution. Our general partner currently holds the IDRs but may transfer these rights separately from its general partner interest.


40


Assuming we do not issue any additional classes of units that are paid distributions and our general partner maintains its 2% interest, if we have made distributions to our unitholders from operating surplus in an amount equal to the initial quarterly distribution for any quarter, assuming no arrearages, then we will distribute any additional available cash from operating surplus for that quarter among the unitholders and our general partner as follows:
 
 
Total Quarterly Distribution
Target Amount
 
Marginal Percentage
Interest Distributions
 
 
Common and Subordinated Unitholders
 
General Partner
Initial quarterly distribution
 
$0.425
 
98%
 
2%
First Target Distribution
 
Above $0.425 up to $0.489
 
98%
 
2%
Second Target Distribution
 
Above $0.489 up to $0.531
 
85%
 
15%
Third Target Distribution
 
Above $0.531 up to $0.638
 
75%
 
25%
Thereafter
 
Above $0.638
 
50%
 
50%

ITEM 6.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
 
Selected financial data set forth below are derived from our audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the periods indicated (in millions, except per unit data). The financial data should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. 
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Revenues (including transactions with affiliates)
 
$
4,304

 
$
1,100

 
$
270

 
$
269

 
$
268

Income (loss) from operations
 
1,156

 
250

 
3

 
1

 
(32
)
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest
 
(614
)
 
(357
)
 
(185
)
 
(177
)
 
(178
)
Net income (loss)
 
490

 
(171
)
 
(319
)
 
(410
)
 
(258
)
Net loss per common unit
 
$
(1.32
)
 
$
(0.20
)
 
$
(0.43
)
 
$
(0.89
)
 
$
(0.03
)
Weighted average units outstanding
 
178.5

 
57.1

 
57.1

 
57.1

 
54.2


 
 
December 31,
 
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Property, plant and equipment, net
 
$
15,139

 
$
14,158

 
$
11,932

 
$
8,978

 
$
6,384

Total assets
 
17,553

 
15,542

 
12,833

 
10,247

 
8,414

Current debt, net
 

 
224

 
1,673

 

 

Long-term debt, net
 
16,046

 
14,209

 
10,018

 
8,851

 
6,474



41


ITEM 7.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Introduction
 
The following discussion and analysis presents management’s view of our business, financial condition and overall performance and should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying notes. This information is intended to provide investors with an understanding of our past performance, current financial condition and outlook for the future. Our discussion and analysis includes the following subjects: 
Overview of Business 
Overview of Significant Events
Liquidity and Capital Resources 
Contractual Obligations
Results of Operations 
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements 
Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates
Recent Accounting Standards
 
Overview of Business
 
We are a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed by Cheniere. Our vision is to provide clean, secure and affordable energy to the world, while responsibly delivering a reliable, competitive and integrated source of LNG, in a safe and rewarding work environment. The liquefaction of natural gas into LNG allows it to be shipped economically from areas of the world where natural gas is abundant and inexpensive to produce to other areas where natural gas demand and infrastructure exist to economically justify the use of LNG. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, SPL, we are developing, constructing and operating natural gas liquefaction facilities (the “Liquefaction Project”) at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, on the Sabine-Neches Waterway less than four miles from the Gulf Coast. We plan to construct up to six Trains, which are in various stages of development, construction and operations. Trains 1 through 4 are operational, Train 5 is under construction and Train 6 is being commercialized and has all necessary regulatory approvals in place. Each Train is expected to have a nominal production capacity, which is prior to adjusting for planned maintenance, production reliability and potential overdesign, of approximately 4.5 mtpa of LNG and an adjusted nominal production capacity of approximately 4.3 to 4.6 mtpa of LNG. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, SPLNG, we own and operate regasification facilities at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, which includes pre-existing infrastructure of five LNG storage tanks with aggregate capacity of approximately 16.9 Bcfe, two marine berths that can each accommodate vessels with nominal capacity of up to 266,000 cubic meters and vaporizers with regasification capacity of approximately 4.0 Bcf/d. We also own a 94-mile pipeline that interconnects the Sabine Pass LNG terminal with a number of large interstate pipelines (the “Creole Trail Pipeline”) through our wholly owned subsidiary, CTPL.

Overview of Significant Events

Our significant accomplishments since January 1, 2017 and through the filing date of this Form 10-K include the following:  
Operational
To date, approximately 300 cumulative LNG cargoes have been produced, loaded and exported from the Liquefaction Project, with over 200 cargoes in 2017 alone, with deliveries completed to 25 countries and regions worldwide.
SPL commenced production and shipment of LNG commissioning cargoes from Train 3 of the Liquefaction Project in January 2017 and achieved substantial completion and commenced operating activities in March 2017.
Commissioning activities for Train 4 of the Liquefaction Project began in March 2017, and substantial completion was achieved in October 2017.

42


Financial
In June 2017, the date of first commercial delivery was reached under the 20-year SPA with Korea Gas Corporation relating to Train 3 of the Liquefaction Project.
In August 2017, the date of first commercial delivery relating to Train 2 of the Liquefaction Project was reached under the respective 20-year SPAs with Gas Natural Fenosa LNG GOM, Limited and BG Gulf Coast LNG, LLC (“BG”).
In February and March 2017, SPL issued aggregate principal amounts of $800 million of 5.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2037 (the “2037 SPL Senior Notes”) and $1.35 billion, before discount, of 4.200% Senior Secured Notes due 2028 (the “2028 SPL Senior Notes”), respectively. Net proceeds of the offerings of the 2037 SPL Senior Notes and 2028 SPL Senior Notes were $789 million and $1.33 billion, respectively, after deducting the initial purchasers’ commissions (for the 2028 SPL Senior Notes) and estimated fees and expenses. The net proceeds of the 2037 SPL Senior Notes, after provisioning for incremental interest required during construction, were used to prepay the outstanding borrowings under the credit facilities SPL entered into in June 2015 (the “2015 SPL Credit Facilities”) and, along with the net proceeds of the 2028 SPL Senior Notes, the remainder is being used to pay a portion of the capital costs in connection with the construction of Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project in lieu of the terminated portion of the commitments under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities.
In September 2017, we issued an aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion of 5.250% Senior Notes due 2025 (“the 2025 CQP Senior Notes”). Net proceeds of the offering of approximately $1.5 billion, after deducting commissions, fees and expenses, were used to prepay a portion of the outstanding indebtedness under our credit facilities (the “2016 CQP Credit Facilities”).
Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) assigned SPL’s senior secured debt an investment grade rating of BBB- in January 2017 and an investment-grade issuer default rating of BBB- in June 2017.
In May 2017, Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) upgraded SPL’s senior secured debt rating from Ba1 to Baa3, an investment-grade rating.
In September 2017, Moody’s, S&P Global Ratings and Fitch assigned ratings of Ba2 / BB / BB, respectively to the 2025 CQP Senior Notes.

Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
The following table provides a summary of our liquidity position at December 31, 2017 and 2016 (in millions):
 
December 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Cash and cash equivalents
$

 
$

Restricted cash designated for the following purposes:
 
 
 
Liquefaction Project
544

 
358

CQP and cash held by guarantor subsidiaries
1,045

 
247

Available commitments under the following credit facilities:
 
 
 
2015 SPL Credit Facilities

 
1,642

$1.2 billion SPL Working Capital Facility (“SPL Working Capital Facility”)
470

 
653

2016 CQP Credit Facilities
220

 
195


For additional information regarding our debt agreements, see Note 11—Debt of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

2025 CQP Senior Notes

In September 2017, we issued an aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes, which are jointly and severally guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries other than SPL and, subject to certain conditions governing the release of its guarantee, Sabine Pass LNG-LP, LLC (collectively, the “CQP Guarantors”). Net proceeds of the offering of approximately $1.5 billion, after deducting the initial purchasers’ commissions and estimated fees and expenses, were used to prepay a portion of the outstanding indebtedness under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities.


43


The 2025 CQP Senior Notes are governed by an indenture (the “CQP Indenture”), which contains customary terms and events of default and certain covenants that, among other things, limit our ability and the ability of the CQP Guarantors to incur liens and sell assets, enter into transactions with affiliates, enter into sale-leaseback transactions and consolidate, merge or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of the applicable entity’s properties or assets.

At any time prior to October 1, 2020, we may redeem all or a part of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes redeemed, plus the “applicable premium” set forth in the CQP Indenture, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption. In addition, at any time prior to October 1, 2020, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes with an amount of cash not greater than the net cash proceeds from certain equity offerings at a redemption price equal to 105.250% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption. We also may at any time on or after October 1, 2020 through the maturity date of October 1, 2025, redeem the 2025 CQP Senior Notes, in whole or in part, at the redemption prices set forth in the CQP Indenture.

The 2025 CQP Senior Notes are our senior obligations, ranking equally in right of payment with our other existing and future unsubordinated debt and senior to any of our future subordinated debt. The 2025 CQP Senior Notes will be secured alongside the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities on a first-priority basis (subject to permitted encumbrances) with liens on (1) substantially all the existing and future tangible and intangible assets and our rights and the rights of the CQP Guarantors and equity interests in the CQP Guarantors (except, in each case, for certain excluded properties set forth in the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities) and (2) substantially all of the real property of SPLNG (except for excluded properties referenced in the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities). The liens securing the 2025 CQP Senior Notes would be released if (1) the aggregate principal amount of all indebtedness then outstanding under the term loans under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities secured by such liens does not exceed $1.0 billion and (2) the aggregate amount of our secured indebtedness and the secured indebtedness of the CQP Guarantors (other than the 2025 CQP Senior Notes or any other series of notes issued under the CQP Indenture) outstanding at any one time, together with all Attributable Indebtedness (as defined in the CQP Indenture) from sale-leaseback transactions (subject to certain exceptions), does not exceed the greater of (1) $1.5 billion and (2) 10% of net tangible assets. Upon the release of the liens securing the 2025 CQP Senior Notes, the limitation on liens covenant under the CQP Indenture will continue to govern the incurrence of liens by us and the CQP Guarantors.

2016 CQP Credit Facilities

In February 2016, we entered into the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities. The 2016 CQP Credit Facilities consist of: (1) a $450 million CTPL tranche term loan that was used to prepay the $400 million term loan facility (the “CTPL Term Loan”) in February 2016, (2) an approximately $2.1 billion SPLNG tranche term loan that was used to repay and redeem the approximately $2.1 billion of the senior notes previously issued by SPLNG (the “SPLNG Senior Notes”) in November 2016, (3) a $125 million facility that may be used to satisfy a six-month debt service reserve requirement and (4) a $115 million revolving credit facility that may be used for general business purposes. In September 2017, we issued the 2025 CQP Senior Notes and the net proceeds were used to prepay $1.5 billion of the outstanding indebtedness under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we had $220 million and $195 million of available commitments, $20 million and $45 million aggregate amount of issued letters of credit and $1.1 billion and $2.6 billion of outstanding borrowings under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities, respectively.

The 2016 CQP Credit Facilities mature on February 25, 2020, with principal payments due quarterly commencing on March 31, 2019. The outstanding balance may be repaid, in whole or in part, at any time without premium or penalty, except for interest hedging and interest rate breakage costs. The 2016 CQP Credit Facilities contain conditions precedent for extensions of credit, as well as customary affirmative and negative covenants and limit our ability to make restricted payments, including distributions, to once per fiscal quarter as long as certain conditions are satisfied. Under the terms of the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities, we are required to hedge not less than 50% of the variable interest rate exposure on its projected aggregate outstanding balance, maintain a minimum debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.15x at the end of each fiscal quarter beginning March 31, 2019 and have a projected debt service coverage ratio of 1.55x in order to incur additional indebtedness to refinance a portion of the existing obligations.

The 2016 CQP Credit Facilities are unconditionally guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries other than (1) SPL and (2) certain of our subsidiaries owning other development projects, as well as certain other specified subsidiaries and members of the foregoing entities.


44


Sabine Pass LNG Terminal 

Liquefaction Facilities

We are developing, constructing and operating the Liquefaction Project at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal adjacent to the existing regasification facilities. We have received authorization from the FERC to site, construct and operate Trains 1 through 6. We have achieved substantial completion of Trains 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Liquefaction Project and commenced operating activities in May 2016, September 2016, March 2017 and October 2017, respectively. The following table summarizes the status of Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project as of December 31, 2017:
 
Train 5
Overall project completion percentage
83.1%
Completion percentage of:
 
Engineering
100%
Procurement
100%
Subcontract work
63.4%
Construction
62.1%
Date of expected substantial completion
1H 2019
 
 
 
The following orders have been issued by the DOE authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal:
Trains 1 through 4—FTA countries for a 30-year term, which commenced on May 15, 2016, and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term, which commenced on June 3, 2016, in an amount up to a combined total of the equivalent of 16 mtpa (approximately 803 Bcf/yr of natural gas).
Trains 1 through 4—FTA countries for a 25-year term and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term in an amount up to a combined total of the equivalent of approximately 203 Bcf/yr of natural gas (approximately 4 mtpa).
Trains 5 and 6—FTA countries and non-FTA countries for a 20-year term, in an amount up to a combined total of 503.3 Bcf/yr of natural gas (approximately 10 mtpa).

In each case, the terms of these authorizations begin on the earlier of the date of first export thereunder or the date specified in the particular order, which ranges from five to 10 years from the date the order was issued. In addition, SPL received an order providing for a three-year makeup period with respect to each of the non-FTA orders for LNG volumes SPL was authorized but unable to export during any portion of the initial 20-year export period of such order.

In January 2018, the DOE issued orders authorizing SPL to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal to FTA countries and non-FTA countries over a two-year period commencing January 2018, in an aggregate amount up to the equivalent of 600 Bcf of natural gas (however, exports under this order, when combined with exports under the orders above, may not exceed 1,511 Bcf/yr).

Customers

SPL has entered into six fixed price SPAs with terms of at least 20 years (plus extension rights) with third parties to make available an aggregate amount of LNG that is between approximately 80% to 95% of the expected aggregate adjusted nominal production capacity of Trains 1 through 5. Under these SPAs, the customers will purchase LNG from SPL for a price consisting of a fixed fee per MMBtu of LNG (a portion of which is subject to annual adjustment for inflation) plus a variable fee per MMBtu of LNG equal to approximately 115% of Henry Hub. In certain circumstances, the customers may elect to cancel or suspend deliveries of LNG cargoes, in which case the customers would still be required to pay the fixed fee with respect to the contracted volumes that are not delivered as a result of such cancellation or suspension. We refer to the fee component that is applicable regardless of a cancellation or suspension of LNG cargo deliveries under the SPAs as the fixed fee component of the price under SPL’s SPAs. We refer to the fee component that is applicable only in connection with LNG cargo deliveries as the variable fee component of the price under SPL’s SPAs. The variable fees under SPL’s SPAs were sized at the time of entry into each SPA with the intent to cover the costs of gas purchases and transportation related to, and operating and maintenance costs to produce, the LNG to be sold under each such SPA. The SPAs and contracted volumes to be made available under the SPAs are not tied to a specific Train; however, the term of each SPA generally commences upon the date of first commercial delivery of a specified Train.

45


Under SPL’s SPA with BG, BG has contracted for volumes related to Trains 3 and 4 for which the obligation to make LNG available to BG is expected to commence approximately one year after the date of first commercial delivery for the respective Train.

In aggregate, the annual fixed fee portion to be paid by the third-party SPA customers is approximately $1.6 billion for Trains 1 through 3, increasing to $2.3 billion upon the date of first commercial delivery of Train 4 and to $2.9 billion upon the date of first commercial delivery of Train 5, with the applicable fixed fees starting from the date of first commercial delivery from the applicable Train, as specified in each SPA.

In addition, Cheniere Marketing has entered into an SPA with SPL to purchase, at Cheniere Marketing’s option, any LNG produced by SPL in excess of that required for other customers.

Natural Gas Transportation, Storage and Supply

To ensure SPL is able to transport adequate natural gas feedstock to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal, it has entered into transportation precedent and other agreements to secure firm pipeline transportation capacity with CTPL and third-party pipeline companies. SPL has entered into firm storage services agreements with third parties to assist in managing volatility in natural gas needs for the Liquefaction Project. SPL has also entered into enabling agreements and long-term natural gas supply contracts with third parties in order to secure natural gas feedstock for the Liquefaction Project. As of December 31, 2017, SPL has secured up to approximately 2,214 TBtu of natural gas feedstock through long-term and short-term natural gas supply contracts.

Construction

SPL entered into lump sum turnkey contracts with Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc. (“Bechtel”) for the engineering, procurement and construction of Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project, under which Bechtel charges a lump sum for all work performed and generally bears project cost risk unless certain specified events occur, in which case Bechtel may cause SPL to enter into a change order, or SPL agrees with Bechtel to a change order.

The total contract price of the EPC contract for Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project is approximately $3.1 billion reflecting amounts incurred under change orders through December 31, 2017. Total expected capital costs for Trains 1 through 5 are estimated to be between $12.5 billion and $13.5 billion before financing costs and between $17.5 billion and $18.5 billion after financing costs, including, in each case, estimated owner’s costs and contingencies.

Final Investment Decision on Train 6

We will contemplate making a final investment decision (“FID”) to commence construction of Train 6 of the Liquefaction Project based upon, among other things, entering into an EPC contract, entering into acceptable commercial arrangements and obtaining adequate financing to construct Train 6.

Regasification Facilities

The Sabine Pass LNG terminal has operational regasification capacity of approximately 4.0 Bcf/d and aggregate LNG storage capacity of approximately 16.9 Bcfe. Approximately 2.0 Bcf/d of the regasification capacity at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal has been reserved under two long-term third-party TUAs, under which SPLNG’s customers are required to pay fixed monthly fees, whether or not they use the LNG terminal.  Each of Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (“Total”) and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) has reserved approximately 1.0 Bcf/d of regasification capacity and is obligated to make monthly capacity payments to SPLNG aggregating approximately $125 million annually for 20 years that commenced in 2009. Total S.A. has guaranteed Total’s obligations under its TUA up to $2.5 billion, subject to certain exceptions, and Chevron Corporation has guaranteed Chevron’s obligations under its TUA up to 80% of the fees payable by Chevron.

The remaining approximately 2.0 Bcf/d of capacity has been reserved under a TUA by SPL. SPL is obligated to make monthly capacity payments to SPLNG aggregating approximately $250 million annually, continuing until at least 20 years after May 2016. SPL entered into a partial TUA assignment agreement with Total, whereby upon substantial completion of Train 3, SPL gained access to a portion of Total’s capacity and other services provided under Total’s TUA with SPLNG.  This agreement provides SPL with additional berthing and storage capacity at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal that may be used to provide increased flexibility in managing LNG cargo loading and unloading activity, permit SPL to more flexibly manage its LNG storage capacity and accommodate the development of Trains 5 and 6. Notwithstanding any arrangements between Total and SPL, payments

46


required to be made by Total to SPLNG will continue to be made by Total to SPLNG in accordance with its TUA. During the year ended December 31, 2017, SPL recorded $23 million as operating and maintenance expense under this partial TUA assignment agreement.

Under each of these TUAs, SPLNG is entitled to retain 2% of the LNG delivered to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal.

Capital Resources

We currently expect that SPL’s capital resources requirements with respect to Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project will be financed through project debt and borrowings and cash flows under the SPAs. We believe that with the net proceeds of borrowings, available commitments under the SPL Working Capital Facility and cash flows from operations, we will have adequate financial resources available to complete Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project and to meet our currently anticipated capital, operating and debt service requirements. SPL began generating cash flows from operations from the Liquefaction Project in May 2016, when Train 1 achieved substantial completion and initiated operating activities. Trains 2, 3 and 4 subsequently achieved substantial completion in September 2016, March 2017 and October 2017, respectively. We realized offsets to LNG terminal costs of $301 million and $201 million in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, that were related to the sale of commissioning cargoes because these amounts were earned or loaded prior to the start of commercial operations, during the testing phase for the construction of those Trains of the Liquefaction Project. Additionally, SPLNG generates cash flows from the TUAs, as discussed above.

The following table provides a summary of our capital resources from borrowings and available commitments for the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal, excluding equity contributions to our subsidiaries and cash flows from operations (as described in Sources and Uses of Cash), at December 31, 2017 and 2016 (in millions):
 
 
December 31,
 
 
2017
 
2016
Senior notes (1)
 
$
15,151

 
$
11,500

Credit facilities outstanding balance (2)
 
1,090

 
3,097

Letters of credit issued (3)
 
730

 
324

Available commitments under credit facilities (3)
 
470

 
2,295

Total capital resources from borrowings and available commitments
 
$
17,441

 
$
17,216

 
(1)
Includes SPL’s 5.625% Senior Secured Notes due 2021, 6.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2022, 5.625% Senior Secured Notes due 2023, 5.75% Senior Secured Notes due 2024, 5.625% Senior Secured Notes due 2025 (the “2025 SPL Senior Notes”), 5.875% Senior Secured Notes due 2026 (the “2026 SPL Senior Notes”), 5.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2027 (the “2027 SPL Senior Notes”), 2028 SPL Senior Notes and 2037 SPL Senior Notes (collectively, the “SPL Senior Notes”) and our 2025 CQP Senior Notes.
(2)
Includes 2015 SPL Credit Facilities, SPL Working Capital Facility and CTPL and SPLNG tranche term loans outstanding under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities.
(3)
Includes 2015 SPL Credit Facilities and SPL Working Capital Facility. Does not include the letters of credit issued or available commitments under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities, which are not specifically for the Liquefaction Project.

For additional information regarding our debt agreements related to the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal, see Note 11—Debt of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

SPL Senior Notes

The SPL Senior Notes are secured on a pari passu first-priority basis by a security interest in all of the membership interests in SPL and substantially all of SPL’s assets.

At any time prior to three months before the respective dates of maturity for each series of the SPL Senior Notes (except for the 2026 SPL Senior Notes, 2027 SPL Senior Notes, 2028 SPL Senior Notes and 2037 SPL Senior Notes, in which case the time period is six months before the respective dates of maturity), SPL may redeem all or part of such series of the SPL Senior Notes at a redemption price equal to the “make-whole” price (except for the 2037 SPL Senior Notes, in which case the redemption price is equal to the “optional redemption” price) set forth in the respective indentures governing the SPL Senior Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption. SPL may also, at any time within three months of the respective

47


maturity dates for each series of the SPL Senior Notes (except for the 2026 SPL Senior Notes, 2027 SPL Senior Notes, 2028 SPL Senior Notes and 2037 SPL Senior Notes, in which case the time period is within six months of the respective dates of maturity), redeem all or part of such series of the SPL Senior Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of such series of the SPL Senior Notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption.

Both the indenture governing the 2037 SPL Senior Notes (the “2037 SPL Senior Notes Indenture”) and the common indenture governing the remainder of the SPL Senior Notes (the “SPL Indenture”) include restrictive covenants. SPL may incur additional indebtedness in the future, including by issuing additional notes, and such indebtedness could be at higher interest rates and have different maturity dates and more restrictive covenants than the current outstanding indebtedness of SPL, including the SPL Senior Notes and the SPL Working Capital Facility. Under the 2037 SPL Senior Notes Indenture and the SPL Indenture, SPL may not make any distributions until, among other requirements, deposits are made into debt service reserve accounts as required and a debt service coverage ratio test of 1.25:1.00 is satisfied. Semi-annual principal payments for the 2037 SPL Senior Notes are due on March 15 and September 15 of each year beginning September 15, 2025.

2015 SPL Credit Facilities
In June 2015, SPL entered into the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities with commitments aggregating $4.6 billion to fund a portion of the costs of developing, constructing and placing into operation Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project. In February 2017, SPL issued the 2037 SPL Senior Notes and a portion of the net proceeds was used to prepay the then outstanding borrowings of $369 million under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities. In March 2017, SPL issued the 2028 SPL Senior Notes and SPL terminated the remaining available balance of $1.6 billion under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities.

SPL Working Capital Facility

In September 2015, SPL entered into the SPL Working Capital Facility, which is intended to be used for loans to SPL (“Working Capital Loans”), the issuance of letters of credit on behalf of SPL, as well as for swing line loans to SPL (“Swing Line Loans”), primarily for certain working capital requirements related to developing and placing into operation the Liquefaction Project. SPL may, from time to time, request increases in the commitments under the SPL Working Capital Facility of up to $760 million and, upon the completion of the debt financing of Train 6 of the Liquefaction Project, request an incremental increase in commitments of up to an additional $390 million. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, SPL had $470 million and $653 million of available commitments, $730 million and $324 million aggregate amount of issued letters of credit and zero and $224 million of loans outstanding under the SPL Working Capital Facility, respectively.

The SPL Working Capital Facility matures on December 31, 2020, and the outstanding balance may be repaid, in whole or in part, at any time without premium or penalty upon three business days’ notice. Loans deemed made in connection with a draw upon a letter of credit have a term of up to one year. Swing Line Loans terminate upon the earliest of (1) the maturity date or earlier termination of the SPL Working Capital Facility, (2) the date 15 days after such Swing Line Loan is made and (3) the first borrowing date for a Working Capital Loan or Swing Line Loan occurring at least three business days following the date the Swing Line Loan is made. SPL is required to reduce the aggregate outstanding principal amount of all Working Capital Loans to zero for a period of five consecutive business days at least once each year.

The SPL Working Capital Facility contains conditions precedent for extensions of credit, as well as customary affirmative and negative covenants. The obligations of SPL under the SPL Working Capital Facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of SPL as well as all of the membership interests in SPL on a pari passu basis with the SPL Senior Notes.

Restrictive Debt Covenants

As of December 31, 2017, we and SPL were in compliance with all covenants related to our respective debt agreements.

48



Sources and Uses of Cash
 
The following table summarizes the sources and uses of our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 (in millions). The table presents capital expenditures on a cash basis; therefore, these amounts differ from the amounts of capital expenditures, including accruals, which are referred to elsewhere in this report. Additional discussion of these items follows the table.
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Operating cash flows
$
977

 
$

 
$
(171
)
Investing cash flows
(1,290
)
 
(2,353
)
 
(2,975
)
Financing cash flows
1,297

 
2,524

 
2,591

 
 
 
 
 
 
Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
984


171


(555
)
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—beginning of period
605

 
434

 
989

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—end of period
$
1,589

 
$
605

 
$
434


Operating Cash Flows

Our operating cash flows during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were an inflow of $977 million, $0 million and an outflow of $171 million, respectively. The $977 million increase in operating cash inflows in 2017 compared to 2016 was primarily related to increased cash receipts from the sale of LNG cargoes, partially offset by increased operating costs and expenses as a result of the of additional Trains that were operating at the Liquefaction Project in 2017. During the year ended December 31, 2017, Trains 1 and 2 were operating for twelve months and Train 3 and Train 4 were operating for nine and three months, respectively, whereas in 2016, Train 1 was operating for seven months and Train 2 was operating for less than four months. The decrease in operating cash outflows in 2016 compared to 2015 was primarily related to increased cash receipts from the sale of LNG cargoes, partially offset by increased operating costs and expenses as a result of the commencement of operations of Trains 1 and 2 of the Liquefaction Project.

Investing Cash Flows

Investing cash outflows during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were $1.3 billion, $2.4 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively, and were primarily used to fund the construction costs for Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project. These costs are capitalized as construction-in-process until achievement of substantial completion. Additionally, during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we used $38 million and $62 million, respectively, primarily for payments to a municipal water district for water system enhancements that will increase potable water supply to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal and payments made pursuant to the information technology services agreement for capital assets purchased on our behalf.

Financing Cash Flows

Financing cash inflows during the year ended December 31, 2017 were $1.3 billion, primarily as a result of:
issuances of aggregate principal amounts of $800 million of the 2037 SPL Senior Notes and $1.35 billion of the 2028 SPL Senior Notes;
$55 million of borrowings and $369 million of repayments made under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities;
$110 million of borrowings and $334 million of repayments made under the SPL Working Capital Facility;
issuance of an aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes, which was used to prepay $1.5 billion of the outstanding borrowings under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities;
$50 million of debt issuance costs related to up-front fees paid upon the closing of these transactions; and
$294 million of distributions to unitholders.


49


Financing cash inflows during the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2.5 billion, primarily as a result of:
$2.6 billion of borrowings under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities used to prepay the $400 million CTPL Term Loan and redeem and repay $2.1 billion of the SPLNG Senior Notes;
$2.0 billion of borrowings under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities;
issuance of an aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion of the 2026 SPL Senior Notes in June 2016, which was used to prepay $1.3 billion of the outstanding borrowings under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities;
issuance of an aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion of the 2027 SPL Senior Notes in September 2016, which was used to prepay $1.2 billion of the outstanding borrowings under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities and pay a portion of the capital costs in connection with the construction of Trains 1 through 5 of the Liquefaction Project;
$474 million of borrowings and $265 million of repayments made under the SPL Working Capital Facility;
$115 million of debt issuance costs related to up-front fees paid upon the closing of these transactions;
$14 million of debt extinguishment costs paid in connection with redemptions and prepayments of outstanding borrowings; and
$99 million of distributions to unitholders.

Financing cash inflows during the year ended December 31, 2015 were $2.6 billion, primarily as a result of:
$860 million of borrowings under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities;
issuance of an aggregate principal amount of $2.0 billion of the 2025 SPL Senior Notes in March 2015;
$170 million of debt issuance and deferred financing costs related to up-front fees paid upon the closing of these transactions; and
$99 million of distributions to unitholders.
 
Cash Distributions to Unitholders
 
Our partnership agreement requires that, within 45 days after the end of each quarter, we distribute all of our available cash (as defined in our partnership agreement). Our available cash is our cash on hand at the end of a quarter less the amount of any reserves established by our general partner. All distributions paid to date have been made from accumulated operating surplus. Prior to the conversion of our Cheniere Partners Class B units on August 2, 2017 in accordance with the terms of our Partnership Agreement, we have declared and paid a quarterly $0.425 distribution per common unit and the related distribution to our general partner of $24 million and $0.5 million, respectively. On October 24, 2017, we declared a $0.44 distribution per common unit and subordinated unit of $153 million and $60 million, respectively, and the related distribution to our general partner of $4 million, which was paid on November 14, 2017 to unitholders of record for the period from July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017.

On January 23, 2018, we declared a $0.50 distribution per common unit and subordinated unit and the related distribution to our general partner, which was paid on February 14, 2018 to unitholders of record as of February 2, 2018 for the period from October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

The subordinated units will receive distributions only to the extent we have available cash above the initial quarterly distributions requirement for our common unitholders and general partner along with certain reserves. Such available cash could be generated through new business development or fees received from Cheniere Marketing under an amended and restated variable capacity rights agreement pursuant to which Cheniere Marketing is obligated to pay Cheniere Investments 80% of the expected gross margin of each cargo of LNG that Cheniere Marketing arranges for delivery to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal. The ending of the subordination period and conversion of the subordinated units into common units will depend upon future business development.


50


Contractual Obligations
 
We are committed to make cash payments in the future pursuant to certain of our contracts. The following table summarizes certain contractual obligations in place as of December 31, 2017 (in millions):
 
 
Payments Due By Period (1)
 
 
Total
 
2018
 
2019 - 2020
 
2021 - 2022
 
Thereafter
Debt (2)
 
$
16,240

 
$

 
$
1,090

 
$
3,000

 
$
12,150

Interest payments (2)
 
5,963

 
887

 
1,742

 
1,386

 
1,948

Construction obligations (3)
 
372

 
293

 
79

 

 

Purchase obligations (4)
 
7,718

 
2,308

 
2,924

 
1,317

 
1,169

Operating lease obligations (5)
 
55

 
2

 
5

 
4

 
44

Obligations to affiliates (6)
 
802

 
45

 
90

 
90

 
577

Total
 
$
31,150

 
$
3,535


$
5,930


$
5,797


$
15,888

 
(1)
Agreements in force as of December 31, 2017 that have terms dependent on project milestone dates are based on the estimated dates as of December 31, 2017.
(2)
Based on the total debt balance, scheduled maturities and interest rates in effect at December 31, 2017.  See Note 11—Debt of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
(3)
Construction obligations relate to the EPC contract for Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project. The estimated remaining cost pursuant to our EPC contracts as of December 31, 2017 is included. A discussion of these obligations can be found at Note 15—Commitments and Contingencies of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
(4)
Purchase obligations consist of contracts for which conditions precedent have been met, and primarily relate to natural gas supply, transportation and storage services for the Liquefaction Project. As project milestones and other conditions precedent are achieved, our obligations are expected to increase accordingly.
(5)
Operating lease obligations primarily relate to land sites related to the Sabine Pass LNG terminal. A discussion of these obligations can be found in Note 14—Leases of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
(6)
Obligations arising through intercompany service agreements include only fixed fees and do not include variable fees. A discussion of these obligations can be found in Note 12—Related Party Transactions of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, we maintain letters of credit and have certain cash restricted in support of certain performance obligations of our subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2017, we had $750 million aggregate amount of issued letters of credit under our credit facilities and $1.6 billion of current and non-current restricted cash. For more information, see Note 4—Restricted Cash of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Results of Operations

Our consolidated net income was $490 million, or $1.32 loss per common unit (basic and diluted), in the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to a net loss of $171 million, or $0.20 loss per common unit (basic and diluted), in the year ended December 31, 2016. This $661 million increase in net income in 2017 was primarily a result of increased income from operations, which was partially offset by increased interest expense, net of amounts capitalized.

In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey struck the Texas and Louisiana coasts, and the Sabine Pass LNG terminal experienced a temporary suspension in construction and LNG loading operations. The terminal did not sustain significant damage, and the effects of Hurricane Harvey did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our consolidated net loss was $319 million, or $0.43 per share (basic and diluted), in the year ended December 31, 2015. This $148 million decrease in net loss in 2016 compared to 2015 was primarily a result of increased income from operations, decreased derivative loss, net and decreased loss on early extinguishment of debt, which were partially offset by increased interest expense, net of amounts capitalized.


51


Revenues
 
 
Year Ended December 31,
(in millions, except volumes)
 
2017
 
2016
 
Change
 
2015
 
Change
LNG revenues
 
$
2,635

 
$
539

 
$
2,096

 
$

 
$
539

LNG revenues—affiliate
 
1,389

 
294

 
1,095

 

 
294

Regasification revenues
 
260

 
259

 
1

 
259

 

Other revenues
 
20

 
4

 
16

 
7

 
(3
)
Other revenues—affiliate
 

 
4

 
(4
)
 
4

 

Total revenues
 
$
4,304

 
$
1,100

 
$
3,204

 
$
270

 
$
830

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LNG volumes recognized as revenues (in TBtu)
 
684

 
151

 
533

 

 
151


2017 vs. 2016 and 2016 vs. 2015

We began recognizing LNG revenues from the Liquefaction Project following the substantial completion and the commencement of operating activities of Train 1 in May 2016. Trains 2, 3 and 4 subsequently achieved substantial completion in September 2016, March 2017 and October 2017, respectively. The increase in revenues for each of the years was attributable to both the increased volume of LNG sold that was recognized as revenues following the achievement of substantial completion of these Trains, as well as increased revenues per MMBtu. We expect our LNG revenues to increase in the future upon Train 5 becoming operational.

Prior to substantial completion of a Train, amounts received from the sale of commissioning cargoes from that Train are offset against LNG terminal construction-in-process because these amounts are earned or loaded during the testing phase for the construction of that Train. We realized offsets to LNG terminal costs of $301 million corresponding to 51 TBtu of LNG and $201 million corresponding to 45 TBtu of LNG in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, that were related to the sale of commissioning cargoes.

Operating costs and expenses
 
Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)
2017
 
2016
 
Change
 
2015
 
Change
Cost (cost recovery) of sales
$
2,320

 
$
410

 
$
1,910

 
$
(31
)
 
$
441

Cost of sales—affiliate

 
2

 
(2
)
 

 
2

Operating and maintenance expense
292

 
127

 
165

 
62

 
65

Operating and maintenance expense—affiliate
100

 
52

 
48

 
29

 
23

Development expense
3

 

 
3

 
3

 
(3
)
Development expense—affiliate

 

 

 
1

 
(1
)
General and administrative expense
12

 
13

 
(1
)
 
15

 
(2
)
General and administrative expense—affiliate
80

 
90

 
(10
)
 
122

 
(32
)
Depreciation and amortization expense
339

 
156

 
183

 
66

 
90

Other
2

 

 
2

 

 

Total operating costs and expenses
$
3,148

 
$
850

 
$
2,298

 
$
267

 
$
583


2017 vs. 2016

Our total operating costs and expenses increased during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016, primarily as a result of additional Trains that were operating between the periods. During the year ended December 31, 2017, Trains 1 and 2 were operating for twelve months and Train 3 and Train 4 were operating for nine and three months, respectively, whereas in 2016, Train 1 was operating for seven months and Train 2 was operating for less than four months.

Cost of sales increased during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016, primarily as a result of the increase in operating Trains during 2017. Cost of sales includes costs incurred directly for the production and delivery of LNG from the Liquefaction Project, to the extent those costs are not utilized for the commissioning process. The increase during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016 was primarily related to the increase in both the volume and pricing of natural gas feedstock. Cost of sales also includes gains and losses from derivatives associated with economic hedges to secure

52


natural gas feedstock for the Liquefaction Project, variable transportation and storage costs and other costs to convert natural gas into LNG.

Operating and maintenance expense (including affiliates) increased during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016, as a result of the increase in operating Trains during 2017. Operating and maintenance expense includes costs associated with operating and maintaining the Liquefaction Project. The increase during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016 was primarily related to natural gas transportation and storage capacity demand charges, third-party service and maintenance contract costs and payroll and benefit costs of operations personnel. Operating and maintenance expense (including affiliates) also includes TUA reservation charges as a result of the commencement of payments under the partial TUA assignment agreement with Total, insurance and regulatory costs and other operating costs.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased during the year ended December 31, 2017 from the year ended 2016 as a result of increased number of operational Trains, as the assets related to the Trains of the Liquefaction Project began depreciating upon reaching substantial completion.

We expect our operating costs and expenses to generally increase in the future upon Train 5 achieving substantial completion, although certain costs will not proportionally increase with the number of operational Trains as cost efficiencies will be realized.

2016 vs. 2015

Our total operating costs and expenses increased during the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015, primarily as a result of the commencement of operations of Trains 1 and 2 of the Liquefaction Project in May and September 2016, respectively.

Cost of sales increased during the year ended December 31, 2016 as a result of the commencement of operations at the Liquefaction Project compared to a cost recovery recognized during the year ended December 31, 2015. This cost recovery was due to a $32 million increase in fair value for our natural gas supply contracts recorded for the period, which we recognized following the completion and placement into service of modifications to the underlying pipeline infrastructure and the resulting development of a market for physical gas delivery at locations specified in a portion of our natural gas supply contracts. Similarly, during the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized a $68 million increase in fair value of a natural gas supply contract due to the satisfaction of conditions precedent, including completion of relevant pipeline infrastructure, for that contract.

Operating and maintenance expense increased during the year ended December 31, 2016 as a result of the commencement of operations at the Liquefaction Project. Depreciation and amortization expense increased during the year ended December 31, 2016 as we began depreciation of our assets related to Trains 1 and 2 of the Liquefaction Project upon reaching substantial completion.

Partially offsetting the increases above was a decrease in SG&A expense—affiliate, which was primarily due to a decrease in the amount payable under our service agreements with affiliates and a reallocation of resources from general and administrative activities to operating and maintenance activities following commencement of operations at the Liquefaction Project. Development expense decreased during the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015, due to an FID made on Train 5 of the Liquefaction Project in June 2015.

Other expense (income)
 
Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)
2017
 
2016
 
Change
 
2015
 
Change
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest
$
614

 
$
357

 
$
257

 
$
185

 
$
172

Loss on early extinguishment of debt
67

 
72

 
(5
)
 
96

 
(24
)
Derivative loss (gain), net
(4
)
 
(6
)
 
2

 
42

 
(48
)
Other income
(11
)
 
(2
)
 
(9
)
 
(1
)
 
(1
)
Total other expense
$
666

 
$
421

 
$
245

 
$
322

 
$
99



53


2017 vs. 2016

Interest expense, net of capitalized interest, increased during the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016, primarily as a result of a decrease in the portion of total interest costs that could be capitalized as Trains 1 through 4 of the Liquefaction Project completed construction and an increase in our indebtedness outstanding (before premium, discount and unamortized debt issuance costs), from $14.6 billion as of December 31, 2016 to $16.2 billion as of December 31, 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we incurred $902 million of total interest cost, of which we capitalized $288 million, which was directly related to the construction of the Liquefaction Project. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred $841 million of total interest cost, of which we capitalized $484 million, which was directly related to the construction of the Liquefaction Project.

Loss on early extinguishment of debt decreased during the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. Loss on early extinguishment of debt recognized during the year ended December 31, 2017 was attributable to the $42 million write-off of debt issuance costs in March 2017 upon termination of the remaining available balance of $1.6 billion under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities in connection with the issuance of the 2028 SPL Senior Notes, in addition to the $25 million write-off of debt issuance costs in September 2017 related to the prepayment of $1.5 billion of the outstanding indebtedness under the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities in connection with the issuance of the 2025 CQP Senior Notes. Loss on early extinguishment of debt recognized during the year ended December 31, 2016 was primarily due to (1) $52 million write-off of debt issuance costs and payment of fees related to the $2.6 billion prepayment of outstanding borrowings and termination of commitments under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities in connection with the issuance of the 2026 SPL Senior Notes and the 2027 SPL Senior Notes and (2) $20 million write-off of debt issuance costs and unamortized discount in connection with the prepayment of the CTPL Term Loan and the redemption of the SPLNG 6.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “2020 SPLNG Senior Notes”).
  
Derivative gain, net decreased during the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016, primarily due to an unfavorable shift in the long-term forward LIBOR curve between the periods, partially offset by the $7 million loss in March 2017 upon the settlement of interest rate swaps associated with approximately $1.6 billion of commitments that were terminated under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities.

2016 vs. 2015

Interest expense, net of capitalized interest, increased during the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015, due to an increase in our indebtedness outstanding (before premium, discount and unamortized debt issuance costs), from $11.8 billion as of December 31, 2015 to $14.6 billion as of December 31, 2016, and a decrease in the portion of total interest costs that could be capitalized as Trains 1 and 2 of the Liquefaction Project were no longer in construction. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred $841 million of total interest cost, of which we capitalized $484 million, which was directly related to the construction of the Liquefaction Project. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we incurred $708 million of total interest cost, of which we capitalized $523 million, which was directly related to the construction of the Liquefaction Project.

Loss on early extinguishment of debt decreased during the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. Loss on early extinguishment of debt in the year ended December 31, 2016 was attributable to (1) $52 million write-off of debt issuance costs and payment of fees related to the $2.6 billion prepayment of outstanding borrowings and termination of commitments under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities in connection with the issuance of the 2026 SPL Senior Notes and the 2027 SPL Senior Notes and (2) $20 million write-off of debt issuance costs and unamortized discount in connection with the prepayment of the CTPL Term Loan and the redemption of the 2020 SPLNG Senior Notes. Loss on early extinguishment of debt during the year ended December 31, 2015 was attributable to the write-off of debt issuance costs and deferred commitment fees in connection with the termination of approximately $1.8 billion of commitments under our previous credit facilities in March 2015 and the replacement of our previous credit facilities with the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities in June 2015.

Derivative loss (gain), net decreased from a $42 million loss in the year ended December 31, 2015 to a $6 million gain in the year ended December 31, 2016. The derivative gain, net recognized in the year ended December 31, 2016 was primarily due to the interest rate derivatives entered into in March 2016 related to the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities, which increased in fair value due to the increase in forward LIBOR curve during the period. Derivative loss, net recognized during the year ended December 31, 2015 was primarily due to a $35 million loss recognized upon the termination of interest rate swaps associated with the previous SPL credit facilities in March 2015.


54


Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
 
As of December 31, 2017, we had no transactions that met the definition of off-balance sheet arrangements that may have a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial position or operating results. 
 
Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates
  
The preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying notes. Management evaluates its estimates and related assumptions regularly, including those related to the valuation of derivative instruments and properties, plant and equipment. Changes in facts and circumstances or additional information may result in revised estimates, and actual results may differ from these estimates. Management considers the following to be its most critical accounting estimates that involve significant judgment.
 
Derivative Instruments

All derivative instruments, other than those that satisfy specific exceptions, are recorded at fair value. We record changes in the fair value of our derivative positions based on the value for which the derivative instrument could be exchanged between willing parties.  If market quotes are not available to estimate fair value, management’s best estimate of fair value is based on the quoted market price of derivatives with similar characteristics or determined through industry-standard valuation approaches. Such evaluations may involve significant judgment and the results are based on expected future events or conditions, particularly for those valuations using inputs unobservable in the market.

Our derivative instruments consist of interest rate swaps, financial commodity derivative contracts transacted in an over-the-counter market and index-based physical commodity contracts. We value our interest rate swaps using observable inputs including interest rate curves, risk adjusted discount rates, credit spreads and other relevant data. Valuation of our financial commodity derivative contracts is determined using observable commodity price curves and other relevant data. Valuation of our index-based physical commodity contracts is developed through the use of internal models which are impacted by inputs that may be unobservable in the marketplace, market transactions and other relevant data. 

Gains and losses on derivative instruments are recognized in earnings. The ultimate fair value of our derivative instruments is uncertain, and we believe that it is reasonably possible that a change in the estimated fair value could occur in the near future as interest rates and commodity prices change.
  
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

A long-lived asset, including an intangible asset, is evaluated for potential impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying value may not be recoverable. Recoverability generally is determined by comparing the carrying value of the asset to the expected undiscounted future cash flows of the asset. If the carrying value of the asset is not recoverable, the amount of impairment loss is measured as the excess, if any, of the carrying value of the asset over its estimated fair value. We use a variety of fair value measurement approaches when market information for the same or similar assets does not exist. Projections of future operating results and cash flows may vary significantly from results. Management reviews its estimates of cash flows on an ongoing basis using historical experience and other factors, including the current economic and commodity price environment.
 
Recent Accounting Standards 

For descriptions of recently issued accounting standards, see Note 18—Recent Accounting Standards of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


55


ITEM 7A.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK 

Marketing and Trading Commodity Price Risk

We have entered into commodity derivatives consisting of natural gas supply contracts to secure natural gas feedstock for the Liquefaction Project (“Liquefaction Supply Derivatives”). In order to test the sensitivity of the fair value of the Liquefaction Supply Derivatives to changes in underlying commodity prices, management modeled a 10% change in the commodity price for natural gas for each delivery location as follows (in millions):
 
December 31, 2017
 
December 31, 2016
 
Fair Value
 
Change in Fair Value
 
Fair Value
 
Change in Fair Value
Liquefaction Supply Derivatives
$
55

 
$
5

 
$
73

 
$
6


Interest Rate Risk

We have entered into interest rate swaps to hedge the exposure to volatility in a portion of the floating-rate interest payments under the 2015 SPL Credit Facilities (“SPL Interest Rate Derivatives”) and the 2016 CQP Credit Facilities (“CQP Interest Rate Derivatives” and collectively, with the SPL Interest Rate Derivatives, the “Interest Rate Derivatives”). In order to test the sensitivity of the fair value of the Interest Rate Derivatives to changes in interest rates, management modeled a 10% change in the forward 1-month LIBOR curve across the remaining terms of the Interest Rate Derivatives as follows (in millions):
 
December 31, 2017
 
December 31, 2016
 
Fair Value
 
Change in Fair Value
 
Fair Value
 
Change in Fair Value
SPL Interest Rate Derivatives
$

 
$

 
$
(6
)
 
$
2

CQP Interest Rate Derivatives
21

 
5

 
13

 
6


See Note 8—Derivative Instruments for additional details about our derivative instruments.


56



ITEM 8.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
 
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
 
CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.



57


MANAGEMENT’S REPORT TO THE UNITHOLDERS OF CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
 
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
 
As management, we are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (“Cheniere Partners”) and its subsidiaries. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we have conducted an assessment, including testing using the criteria in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). Cheniere Partners’ system of internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements and, even when determined to be effective, can only provide reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Based on our assessment, we have concluded that Cheniere Partners maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

Cheniere Partners’ independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP, has issued an audit report on Cheniere Partners’ internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, which is contained in this Form 10-K.
 
Management’s Certifications
 
The certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cheniere Partners’ general partner required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have been included as Exhibits 31 and 32 in Cheniere Partners’ Form 10-K.
                                                                   
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
 
 
By:
Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC,
 
Its general partner
 
By:
/s/ Jack A. Fusco
 
By:
/s/ Michael J. Wortley
 
Jack A. Fusco
 
 
Michael J. Wortley
 
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


58


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Unitholders of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. and
Board of Directors of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC:

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries (the Partnership) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations, partners’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes and financial statement schedule I (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Partnership as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated February 20, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

Basis for Opinion
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Partnership in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



/s/    KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
 



We have served as the Partnership’s auditor since 2014.

Houston, Texas
February 20, 2018


59


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Unitholders of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. and
Board of Directors of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC:

Opinion on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
We have audited Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.’s and subsidiaries’ (the Partnership) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. In our opinion, the Partnership maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets of the Partnership as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of operations, partners’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes and financial statement schedule I (collectively, the consolidated financial statements), and our report dated February 20, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.
Basis for Opinion
The Partnership’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Partnership in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the partnership; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the partnership are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the partnership; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the partnership’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/    KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
 
Houston, Texas
February 20, 2018

60


CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES


CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in millions, except unit data)
 
 
December 31,
 
 
2017
 
2016
ASSETS
 

 
 
Current assets
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
 
$

 
$

Restricted cash
 
1,589

 
605

Accounts and other receivables
 
191

 
90

Accounts receivable—affiliate
 
163

 
99

Advances to affiliate
 
36

 
38

Inventory
 
95

 
97

Other current assets