Good morning. My name is Lindsey and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Cheniere Energy, Inc. Third Quarter 2016 Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session [Operator Instructions] Thank you. Mr. Randy Bhatia, Director of Finance and Investor Relations, you may begin your conference.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Cheniere Energy's third quarter 2016 earnings conference call. The slide presentation and access to the webcast for today's call can be found on our website located at cheniere.com. Participating on the call this morning are Jack Fusco, Cheniere's President and Chief Executive Officer; Anatol Feygin, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer, and Michael Wortley, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I would like to remind all listeners that our remarks, including answers to your questions, may contain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from what is described in these statements. Slide 2 of our presentation contains a discussion of those forward-looking statements and associated risks. In addition, we may include references to non-GAAP financial measures such as adjusted EBITDA, net loss as adjusted, and net loss per share as adjusted. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measure can be found in the appendix of the slide deck. As part of our discussion on Cheniere Energy, Inc.'s results, today's call may also include selected financial information and results for Cheniere Energy Partners L.P., or CQP, and Cheniere Energy Partners LP Holdings, or CQH. On this call, we do not intend to cover CQP or CQH's results separately from those of Cheniere Energy. After prepared remarks from each of the participating executives, we will open the call for Q&A. As shown on the agenda on Slide 3, Jack will begin with an overview of the quarter and then give an update on construction and operating progress at our liquefaction projects. Following Jack's comments, we will hear from Anatol on the market and then from Michael, who will review financial results. I will now turn the call over to Jack.

Thank you, Randy, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to be here today for Cheniere's third quarter 2016 earnings call. I've been CEO of Cheniere now for approximately six months, and since our inaugural call in August, my confidence has only grown in Cheniere as a platform for long-term shareholder value creation. During the quarter, we achieved some operational and financial milestones, and we implemented some internal initiatives that not only demonstrate our ability to execute, but also position us for long-term success on multiple fronts. We will cover a number of these items during today's call. Turning to Slide 5 for an overview of some operational highlights for the third quarter 2016, the third quarter continued to see Cheniere's transition to commercial operations as we took over care, custody and control of Train 2 at Sabine Pass during the quarter. Lessons learned in the commissioning of Train 1 were applied and resulted in improved and streamlined commissioning process on Train 2. A total of three commissioning cargoes were produced and exported from Train 2 prior to the declaration of substantial completion. Train 2 substantial completion was achieved on September 15, ahead of contractual schedule and on budget. I'd like to take this opportunity to again recognize the efforts of Cheniere employees and our EPC partner Bechtel on the achievement of this milestone and look forward to our continued success as we have begun the commissioning process for Train 3. Consistent with what we highlighted for the second quarter, slide 5 once again highlights revenue, adjusted EBITDA and volumes lifted as metrics, which are important to watch as we track the business going forward. Revenues for the third quarter were $466 million and $712 million year-to-date. Train 1 was in operations nearly the entire quarter. Train 2 achieved substantial completion…

Thanks, Jack, and good morning, everyone. Turning to Slide 10, I'd like to provide an update on the current market environment. Through the third quarter, Global LNG volumes are up 7% year-over-year with continued strong demand from India, China and new consumption from the Middle East and Pakistan, more than offsetting reduced volumes from the established markets of Japan, South Korea, and Brazil. LNG demand from China and India has continued to surprise to the upside. China's LNG imports are up nearly 30% year-over-year through the end of the third quarter. While the uptick is in part due to Chinese buyers absorbing new contractual LNG volumes from Australian plants, the country's overall gas demand has grown by about 8% through the end of August as gas demand growth rate is outpacing China's 6.5% to 7% GDP growth for the year, a turnaround from last year. Indian LNG buyers, through the end of September, reached the highest quarterly total on record. Indian LNG buyers both existing and new importers have been buying short-term volumes to supplement their long-term purchases. Competitive LNG prices, declining domestic supply, and the government's focus on stimulating gas use in the power sector have underpinned the 35% increase in LNG imports. While global pricing remains off the highs seen several years ago, LNG markets tightened modestly through the quarter with strong summer demand in the northern hemisphere at a time of production shortages driven by force majeure in Nigeria and declining legacy production in Trinidad and Tobago. Increased supply from Australia and the United States has been absorbed by the market with LNG imports into Europe up about 8% through the end of September. Total gas demand in Europe is expected to grow by roughly 6% this year. Against that backdrop, commissioning volumes, mainly cargoes made available…

Thanks, Anatol, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to announce our financial results for the third quarter of 2016, a summary of which can be found on Slide 15. Train 1 was in commercial operations for almost the entire third quarter. It was brought down for the flare work near the end of the quarter and therefore we saw significant progress in our financial results. It's exciting and rewarding to begin to see our financial results transition as Sabine Pass is entering commercial service. We're also excited about moving the company forward and articulating our financial strategy with a long-term goal of value creation through a disciplined capital allocation philosophy. As a reminder, Cheniere Energy consolidates the results of Cheniere Energy Partners, CQP, and Cheniere Partners Holdings, CQH. For the third quarter 2016, we report a consolidated revenue of $466 million compared to $67 million in the corresponding 2015 period. Revenue recognized from LNG sales for the second quarter of 2016 was approximately $400 million. Before moving on, I'd like to once again provide some information about our cargo sales during the third quarter as it relates to revenue recognition. During the third quarter, we loaded and exported 18 cargoes and sold nearly $350 million worth of LNG produced at Sabine Pass Liquefaction or SPL. Three of the 18 cargoes were loaded to substantial completion of Train 2. As a reminder, proceeds from the sale of commissioning cargoes are not reflected on the income statement rather they are recorded as an offset to construction and process on the balance sheet because these amounts were earned prior to our taking over care, custody, and control of Train 2. LNG cargoes on future trains will be treated in the same manner. It may be difficult to model our revenue accurately and tie…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Bhavesh Lodaya from Credit Suisse. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning.

Good morning.

So, first follow-on, there's a midscale liquefaction project, congrats on the announcement. Could you give us more color on what kind of contract structures and like percentage of marketing of spot volumes you expect on these trains? And also how's the permitting process for these? Can you use an existing like Sabine Pass T6 and Corpus T3 approvals for these plants?

Hi. Thanks for the question. This is Anatol. So, one thing that we'd like to take this opportunity to discuss is kind of the separation between the marketing of LNG and ensuring that we have the best cost structure possible to supply those opportunities. So, what we're doing here today is, as Jack mentioned, beyond our efforts with the Train 3 and potentially Train 6 that are fully permitted, and we believe will offer some of the lowest cost opportunities for incremental LNG supply. And at this point, we're cautiously optimistic that this midscale effort will yield a similar or perhaps an improved cost structure. We will be very disciplined in how we prosecute incremental liquefaction facilities. We will continue to have term contracts and off takes. But given the modular design and the smaller minimum efficiency scale of these plants, it is possible that we have additional degrees of freedom in how we finance them. So, it's too early to tell. We'll know more once we move through the process of really running this opportunity through its paces. As we mentioned a couple times, we'll do a lot more by the time the middle of 2017 rolls around, and we expect that the contract structures will be somewhat more flexible, but we're not going to have a meaningful amount of merchant exposure regardless of what technology we pursue.

Thanks. And is it fair to assume this Midscale liquefaction and the MIDSHIP, both these products as of now, are at the LNG level?

That's correct.

Okay. Maybe my final point on – question on MIDSHIP is could you maybe talk about what are the returns or targeted return profile you're expecting from the MIDSHIP project? And also, were there any other areas in the U.S. midstream you were considering before you decided on the MIDSHIP project?

Yes. So, maybe – this is Anatol again. Maybe just to take a step back. This is a potential component in our supply portfolio. As you're well aware, we're going to be a very large buyer of molecules to feed both facilities. We already have a very large portfolio of firm capacity delivering into both facilities. This will augment that and will give us a potentially increased diversification and degrees of freedom of where to source molecules. Right now, we have, again, a large portfolio already in place. This moves us towards the west, if you will, in terms of shifting our center mass for where these molecules come from. And right now, we think that this is incrementally one of the most attractive residue gas opportunities in the country. As you are well aware, the basin's economics are driven primarily by liquids with a very large residue gas cut and we like the durability of this resource and the ability to access it and feed it into an infrastructure that we currently own and control. So, we're constantly on a lookout. We talked to literally every major producer in the country and as new opportunities present themselves to debottleneck and move more molecules to the plants, given the volumes that we will be purchasing, we'll continue to evaluate such options.

Got it.

Mike, do you have anything to add?

In terms of returns, as we think about financing this project, I'm really comfortable with our liquidity position right now as it relates to the seven trains we have under construction and we're fully financed in that regard. As we look at incremental projects, I think it's too early to for us to start allocating some of that liquidity to growth. So, we'll be looking to really third-party finance this project and we kicked off a private equity process many months ago. This week, we got a round of indications and I think there's a huge bid for this kind of product -- infrastructure underpinned by long-term capacity contracts. So, I'd say from a rate of return basis, I think the market's finding it pretty attractive. But we'll be relatively capital light on this project. At least this one. Not large capital commitments really until 2018, but for now that's our position.

Okay. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Faisel Khan from Citigroup. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Good morning. It's Faisel Khan from Citigroup. I just wanted to understand on CQH. I know you can't talk about some of the details around the transaction. But is there a shareholder vote that's needed to complete that transaction?

Yeah. The LLC agreement calls for a shareholder vote. Yes.

Okay. And is it for the entire – is your 80% that you own part of that vote? Or is it just the 20% of minority holders?

The former.

Okay. So, it's the entire ownership position that votes. And so, if it's more than 50% then that's it?

That's right.

Okay. Understood. In terms of the priority of cash flows, as they come through as each train ramps up, have you guys thought about exactly like what's the – how you're going to balance the need to pay down debt ? And how much capital you return to shareholders versus how you're thinking about building a pipeline? How is that sort of thought process evolving? And where should we think about the priority of cash flows?

Yeah. I mean, as I said right now, the priority of cash flows is to – early cash flows go back into the projects. That's how we finance them from day one. So, Train 1, 2, 3 cash flow is really directed to finishing Trains 4 and 5. That was the source of cash like I said from day one. And that's $2 billion, $2.5 billion. So, that's going to be the first priority. And then we have another $1 billion we have to put into Corpus. So, all of that is set up right now with the liquidity and cash flows that we foresee. So, that's where we're going to be for the next year or two. So, we don't really have much to think about in terms of incremental capital allocation whether it's – and we don't have any debt coming due for a long time in any case. But as it relates to dividends and investing in MIDSHIP, really, I think – as I said earlier, that capital is really spoken for now.

Okay. And Michael, how do you – what do you think is the right sort of debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the company in the long run? So, as I look at your sort of cash flows ramp up and they mature, how should I look at the balance sheet over the long run on a debt-to-EBITDA basis? Sorry.

Yeah. We start with a project. The metric that matters to us into the rating agencies because we have two very large projects debt service coverage ratio over the life of the contracts. That's the key metric they care about. And debt-to-EBITDA is then a derivative of managing the DSCR. So, our projects are in the 1.6 neighborhood, which is deeply into investment grade land. So, that's why we always say our projects were finance investment grade, just a matter of time before they get there and we saw that with SPL. So, we target 1.5, 1.6 at the project and that turns into a consolidated leverage ratio of what's that – six or seven times, which looks high, but it isn't because you got to really focus because of our long-dated contracts, you got to focus on that fully amortizing the SCR. So, six or seven on a consolidated basis is where we'll be for a while.

Okay. Makes sense. And then on the modular LNG FEED contract, how many dollars are you going to allocate to this FEED study and contract?

It's not much. It's singles of millions of dollars for the FEED.

Okay. Okay. And then, in terms of marketing Train 6 at Sabine and Train 3 at Corpus Christi, is there a marketing team in place? And I know there's been some departures within the management team over the last several months. I just want to understand what's the process in terms of going out and marketing those volumes to new customers?

Thanks, Faisel. It's Anatol. No. Absolutely, we have a full origination team in place really all over the globe. We've staffed up in Asia. We have tremendous resources in London, Houston and some in Latin America. We feel very good about our ability to cover the globe and the opportunity set with the team in place. As with any evolution as we've discussed as we transition from the development to operation, there's some optimization involved, but we have not cut into any muscle and have the right people in place to capture the opportunities.

Okay. And in terms of the – Trains 1 and 2 are ramped up now but how are you guys looking at the future nominations? I believe your customers have to sort of give you those nominations a few months ahead of time. How are you guys looking at – what is the future demand in terms of overall capacity for Trains 1 and 2, given your current nominations?

I'm not really sure I understand that question. Can you...

Sure. So, each Train is 4.5 million tons per annum and I believe your customers have to tell you ahead of time how much gas they need to load out of each one of those facilities. So, I was just trying to understand is over the next few months, what percentage of that capacity is going to be utilized?

Okay. So, now I understand what you're saying. So, we haven't given and that information is competitive information, so the customers have filed their ADP schedules with us, so we know when their ships are coming and what the expectation is for loading. But we haven't given out any other forecast information of what we may do with the excess cargoes if that what's you're asking.

Okay. Got it.

And if I could, sorry, but you're – I need to move on.

I've asked too many questions. I'll go back in the queue. That's fine. Thanks, Jack.

Yes.

Your next question comes from the line of Christine Cho with Barclays. Your line is now open.

Hi, everyone. So, I actually wanted to go back to this pipeline. Would you go forward with just the 750 MMcf/d that you have contracted or you would really like to see other contracts on it? And just given that there are a number of midstream players who have talked about wanting to build the gas pipes out of the STACK SCOOP, I know, Michael, you talked about private equity being interested, but I mean, should we think that you're open to either doing like a JV with another midstream partner or selling interest in yours?

Hey, Christine. It's Anatol. And perhaps, Michael will chime in as well. But again, we approach all of these gas supply decisions, and in a robust fashion, we evaluate buy versus build opportunities. The 750 MMcf/d, to answer the first part of your question, is the amount that we would need to go to a binding Open Season. The project would be scaled at that point for attractive jurisdictional returns. That is something, as Michael said, that there is a tremendous interest in for a number of reasons. We, as well as our partners, would like to see a larger pipeline built pointed at TexOak, our supply portfolio there. So, we think there's very good opportunity for capturing additional commitments and we think that pointing those SCOOP and STACK volumes in the southeast direction is really optimal for the producers to reach the growing market in the Gulf Coast. So, we're very optimistic. Again the 750 MMcf/d, we think, is just the starting point and is something that we think both producers and the market will find attractive. So, we before we embark on this process, which has been – we've been at it for better part of the year, we did evaluate dozens of other opportunities and again this is something that we are very comfortable with and confident is the right solution to be dialed in. And again, as Michael said, we have tremendous interest from sponsors that will minimize our financial commitment and will allow us to get the molecules into the right market for us.

Okay. Great. And then, the modular stuff that you're looking at, you guys said 9.5 mtpa. But I was just curious, how large is each modular train and would you kind of -- if successful, would you kind of build them one by one, so it's not necessarily like you need a big push in that 9.5 mtpa day one to move forward with one train? How should we be thinking about that?

Yeah. Thanks, Christine. So, again this is a modular design. We're still early in evaluating the – again, the minimum efficiency scale here is something between 1 million tons and 1.5 million tons and the attractiveness here is we'll be able to dispatch them as we successfully commercialize them. That's the whole idea behind this, the 9.5 happens to be a number that matches well with lots of other components in how we think about how we grow the business beyond Train 3 and Train 6.

Okay. And then there was some news about one of your neighbors experiencing some sizable delays on their LNG project due to the flooding. It sounded like it was an issue that was specific to them, but can you just verify that there is no impact to Bechtel facilities and workforce as well as your facility from similar issues?

That's right, Christine. We have no impact for Bechtel or for our facilities like they did at one of the competitors' facility. So, we're very pleased with our relationship with Bechtel. We're pleased that Bechtel has built the majority of these liquefaction facilities around the world. And we intend to meet all of our commitments and get these trains on budget, on schedule, et cetera.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Ted Durbin with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Thanks. Can you tell us how many marketing cargoes or how much marketing volume you lifted this quarter and were they all liquefied at Sabine Pass?

So, the cargoes that were lifted as part of the commissioning process by Cheniere Marketing which, as Michael said, are not effectively are not reflected in our revenues, we had three of those before commercial operations. In terms of other commercial activity by Cheniere Marketing, it's not something that we want to give any additional detail on at this time.

Okay. Can you give us – I was a little bit unclear on the El Campesino moving to FID. Do you have full regulatory approval for that project or not?

We do. We do. We have permits issued both for the terminal as well as the power plant.

Okay. So, what's next then in terms of FID? You're comfortable with the returns and other things? What's left then?

Absolutely. Well, what's left is reams and reams of documents and agreements, and of course, most importantly, the financing.

Okay. Got it. And then if I could just do one more on the CapEx itself for all the Trains. Can you just give us an update on where you are in terms of the change orders? I know you said you're on time on budget. Have you reserved enough versus where you're tracking? And then if you could give us a sense of the actual CapEx spend as you look into 2017 and 2018, if you could put a dollar number on that.

Sure. On the contingency side, we're still very comfortable, and we don't really give that number out month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter. But it's substantial at SPL and it's really substantial at Corpus still. I mean, really, close to what we started with, and we're 40% into that project or so. So, we're feeling good about contingency. In terms of CapEx next year, it's a couple of billion dollars if you include IDC and financing cost for SPL next year, Corpus will be a little north of $2 billion, closer to $2.4 billion. So, $4.4 billion next year CapEx. Then it starts to roll off a bit. 2018 looks more like $3 billion in total.

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

All right, Ted. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of James Carreker with U.S. Capital Advisers. Your line is now open.

Hi. Most of my questions have been answered. Thank you.

All right, James.

Our next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Your line is now open.

Good morning.

Hi, Jeremy.

Jack, you've made some kind of swift progress here in terms of bringing out some efficiencies. I'm just wondering if you could expand a bit more as far as other opportunities that you've been seeing here, and how we should think about that as we head forward.

Well, yes, thanks, Jeremy. First off, it's been a fantastic opportunity for me personally these past six months. It's been rewarding, interesting, getting to know the Cheniere professionals has been fantastic. We've had a lot of irons in the hopper. And so, we've been pulling on a lot of different levers. I'm looking forward to stabilizing the organization and really seeing what this team is capable of. So, I'm very, very excited about our future going forward, and I'm extremely excited to be working with this group of professionals because we all seem to be communicating very well. And we're all focused, I think, on the right things, which is building the existing trains, operating the existing trains and then growing this business. But thanks for the recognition. This group's been working really hard these past few months.

Great. And then building on one of the earlier questions. One of your competitors announced construction delays. How do you see this impacting you as far as do you see opportunities for Cheniere that arise from this development, whether it'd be marketing or attracting new business or in any other way?

Well, first, Jeremy, thank you. And I guess I'd just give a shout-out if they need help with some LNG, Cheniere is ready and willing and able to provide themselves or their customers with a few tank loads of LNG if they need it. But other than that, I'm not sure we need – there's anything I could say or it's not what we're experiencing ourselves.

Fair enough. Thanks for that. I'll step back in the queue and give other people a chance. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks.

Our next question comes from the line of Fotis Giannakoulis with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.

Yes. Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you. I would like to ask you about the recent development in LNG prices, the $7 per MMBtu is significantly higher what we saw this year. What do you think is driving that and how sustainable it is? And if you can also discuss whether prices can affect the FID of Train 6 of Sabine Pass or even the midscale, whether you can take FID without off-takes just by hedging the gas prices right now that they have moved much higher than earlier this year?

Hey, Fotis. It's Anatol. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Yeah. The pricing has been very robust. I will give a shout-out to the teams on both sides of the plant that have sourced gas very efficiently and effectively and have marketed those volumes as you guys can see from the DOE reports effectively as well. I will say, you and I have discussed this in the past, anyone who thinks that price elastic supply and price elastic demand takes a decade to rebalance, I disagree with. And I think that's a large part of what we're seeing here, we're seeing it in the coal market. And we're seeing it in the LNG market. We've had dramatic increase in imports, increased utilization of existing infrastructure, and this is coming at a time when we're delivering volumes into the market, and on our math, almost two thirds of this wave of Australian LNG has come online. Now, you can say that the trains aren't in aggregate running at capacity, which is fair, but the market has very effectively absorbed these volumes and I don't think you had a lot of people, a year ago, prognosticating this rally in European gas prices. So, as you said, the NBP minus 115% of Henry Hub is popping up around $4 now. And that is certainly good for our business and continues to position Henry Hub as a supply source very attractively. Now, your next question of, is it hedgeable for term and is it something that we would use to underwrite our expansion opportunities, the answer on that is no. We would need term contracts with credit-worthy counterparties. And if there's a large portfolio player that is emboldened enough to go into the market and attempt to lock in this spread which, as you know, as well as anyone isn't all that liquid beyond a relatively short period. We'll be happy to supply into that, that contracted capacity, but we would need term and credit in order to FID incremental liquefaction.

Thank you, Anatol. Just one follow-up. What would be the minimum amount that you would need to get enough take for the midscale opportunity that you are discussing?

Well, Fotis, thanks, again, it's early to tell because we are still kicking the tires, of course, and evaluating with our partners what the size and cost structure is. But to the extent that we're right and that this minimum efficiency scale number is somewhere in the 1 million tons to 1.5 million tons range. And we can opportunistically add this capacity in smaller increments, I would say, as a guide post, you can think about kind of two thirds to three fourths of that capacity being committed under term sales in order for us to move forward. I think we would say that we don't need the 90% contracted capacity for 20 years as we did on the current projects. But substantially firmed up is – with the majority sold under long-term agreements is our current posture.

Thank you very much, Anatol.

Our next question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Your line is now open.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for letting me in. As a follow-up to Ted's question about the quarter's cargoes, is there any color about foundation customer interest in tapping their early cargo rights?

Hey. How are you, Craig? It's Anatol again. So, foundation customers, as you know, both BG/Shell, as well as Gas Natural, have agreements for pre-commercial cargoes. And they're the only two that have those agreements, but we've been -- the Cheniere Marketing organization has been transacting with the entire portfolio of LNG buyers and those foundation customers are among them. So, I guess the answer to your question is yes on both, both the pre-commercial cargoes as well as incremental volumes have been sold to foundation customers.

Fair enough. I appreciate that. And the original higher margin contracted position like a year and a half plus ago, I think it was like 150 million MMBtu through 2018, are those cargoes ones that you kept flexibility on timing of filling or should they roll out kind of methodically over time through 2018?

So, all of those sales are at time certain periods, if that's part of your question. And as you said, that margin will flow through our financials over the next year and a half or so.

And I guess, I'm asking is how lumpy is it or is it pretty methodical?

It's substantially in 2017 with some volumes into 2018.

Okay. And last question, there were some comment about being very comfortable with the budgeted contingencies at this point. Can you handicap at this point, combined with prospects for maybe not using all SPL contingencies and also with debt financing costs to this point about maybe coming on the inside of that $2 billion, $2.5 billion backend equity funding target.

No. I think our assumption right now conservatively is that the contingency gets spent. In Train 5, is still way out and then Corpus, is still relatively early days. So, very comfortable contingency but we're not taking a victory lap just yet.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Our last question comes from the line of Alex Kania with Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.

Thanks. Good morning. Just, I want to go back to the SG&A commentary. So, again, I just want to verify that you said in the past that you'd see a long term run rate at the kind of LNG SG&A level of $300 million and now you're saying it's going to be closer to $200 million. Is that a fair way to think about it?

That's right.

Okay. Does it take any additional time to get there or do you feel like that a lot of the steps that you need to make have already been made?

Yeah, if you strip out stock comp out of our current run rate we're not that far from the low 200s right now. So, I think we're going to generally arrest the growth of future G&A. There will be some growth, but there will be some other areas where we'll be more efficient and the net-net will be kind of a flattish run rate.

Great. Thank you very much.

And there are no other questions at this time. I'll turn the call back over to the presenters for closing comments.

Yeah. This is Jack. I just want to say thank you very much for all of your support of Cheniere and of me over this last six months and I look forward to working together over the next coming years. So, thank you again. Bye-bye.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.