Bernstein LNG Sector Update January 2015

8/9/2019 Bernstein LNG Sector Update January 2015

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bernstein-lng-sector-update-january-2015 1/60

A s i a - P a c i f i c O i l & G

a s

January 21, 2015

Neil Beveridge, Ph.D. (Senior Analyst) • [email protected] • +852-2918-5741

Oswald Clint, Ph.D., ACA (Senior Analyst) • [email protected] • +44-207-170-5089

Bob Brackett, Ph.D. (Senior Analyst) • [email protected] • +1-212-756-4656

Lu Wang • [email protected] • +852-2918-5723

Kevin Lian • [email protected] • +852-2918-5743

See Disclosure Appendix of this report for important disclosures and analyst certifications.

Global LNG: Texas Standoff. How Lower Oil Prices Impact OurOutlook For the Global LNG Industry in 2015 and Beyond

Ticker Rating CUR

19 Jan 2015Closing

PriceTargetPrice

TTMRel.Perf.

EPS P/E

2013A 2014E 2015E 2013A 2014E 2015E Yield

WPL.AU M AUD 34.17 39.00 -14.9% 2.14 3.40 2.09 16.0 10.1 16.3 7.9%

STO.AU M AUD 7.54 10.70 -50.3% 0.52 0.57 0.50 14.5 13.2 15.1 4.0%

OSH.AU O AUD 7.49 9.70 -11.0% 0.16 0.39 0.43 46.8 19.2 17.4 0.6%

BG/.LN O GBp 852.50 1510.00 -0.7% 83.96 66.00 71.00 10.2 12.9 12.0 2.2%

RDS/A O USD 64.39 83.00 -1.9% 5.32 7.82 8.90 12.1 8.2 7.2 5.8%

RDSA.LN O GBp 2102.50 2600.00 -1.6% 172.73 234.00 278.00 12.2 9.0 7.6 5.4%

RDSA.NA O EUR 27.66 32.50 0.7% 2.00 2.89 3.48 13.8 9.6 7.9 5.0%

RDS/B O USD 66.61 77.00 -2.3% 5.32 7.38 6.66 12.5 9.0 10.0 5.6%

RDSB.LN O GBp 2167.50 2400.00 -2.2% 172.73 221.00 214.00 12.5 9.8 10.1 5.2%

RDSB.NA O EUR 28.62 32.50 1.1% 2.00 2.89 3.48 14.3 9.9 8.2 4.9%

BP M USD 37.86 41.00 1.2% 4.26 4.00 3.67 8.9 9.5 10.3 6.2%

BP/.LN M GBp 413.35 410.00 1.3% 45.28 40.00 39.00 9.1 10.3 10.6 5.9%

FP.FP O EUR 43.30 51.00 2.6% 4.73 4.19 4.47 9.2 10.3 9.7 5.6%

TOT O USD 50.91 64.22 1.4% 6.28 5.66 5.55 8.1 9.0 9.2 6.5%

1605.JP (Inpex) O JPY 1264.50 1630.00 -5.4% 125.78 121.00 88.00 10.1 10.5 14.4 1.4%

IOC O USD 34.02 70.00 -42.8% -0.83 6.99 -0.59 1.5 1.6 1.5 NA

SPX 2019.42 108.28 116.04 125.22 18.6 17.4 16.1 2.0%

MXAPJ 467.24 32.96 35.34 38.46 14.2 13.2 12.1 3.1%

MSDLE15 1385.92 87.14 89.75 98.21 15.9 15.4 14.1 3.3%

MXJP 841.24 51.12 55.40 62.13 16.5 15.2 13.5 1.9%

O – Outperform, M – Market-Perform, U – Underperform, N – Not Rated

* 1605.JP estimates are for financial years that end in March 2013, March 2014 and March 2015. European and US stock prices refer to close prices on April 01.

Highlights

The LNG industry is suffering from an anxiety attack over falling oil prices and uncertainty around global growth. This will lead to stalled new investment in 2015, although we believe this will be temporary. We

remain confident in long term demand growth and see 90mtpa of new projects required to be sanctionedover the next 5 years. In this note we examine how lower oil prices have impacted the global LNG industry

and our outlook for 2015 and beyond.

∑ After 3 years of weak growth, global LNG demand will accelerate in 2015 to 9.8% on new supply

and lower prices which have dropped to US$9/mscf. LNG demand has been flat over the past 3 years.Higher LNG prices (linked to oil) have slowed demand growth, especially in Europe; while acombination of limited new supply and disruption to output from existing plants in the MENA regionhave curtailed LNG output. We expect demand in 2015 to increase by 9.8% to 268mtpa as new LNG projects start up and lower prices stimulate demand growth (as we are seeing this already in India andASEAN countries).

∑ Commodity price volatility and increased capacity will however result in a sharp slowdown in new

long term contracts and investment in the industry. Over the next 2 years we expect over 60mtpa ofnew supply growth as the wave of Australian LNG projects sanctioned in 2010/11 start up in what will bethe strongest ramp up in supply since the start-up of Qatar LNG in 2007/8. At the same time however, weexpect few new LNG projects to be sanctioned as volatility in commodity prices results in buyers andsellers stalling on new long term LNG contracts. This will be negative for some of the service names.




a s

January 21, 2015


2

∑ Despite the slowdown in near term investments, we still see a need for 90mtpa of new LNG projectsto be sanctioned over the next 5 years to meet long term demand. We expect global LNG demand toreach 355mtpa by 2020 and 440mtpa by 2025. Assuming capacity utilization of 90%, we need 490mptaof capacity by 2025. Taking into account existing capacity and projects under construction (combined

400mtpa), we currently see a 90mtpa in supply by 2025. With construction time scales of 5 years, thismeans 90mtpa of new projects sanctioned by 2020.

∑ With the long term spread between oil and gas prices converging, the US is no longer as

competitive as it was. Spreads in gas price between Asian LNG and US gas have fallen by 50% fromUS$12/mscf to US$6/mscf. With liquefaction and shipping costs of US$6.50/mscf, arbitrage margins arenow negative. While we still see scope for a few more US LNG projects, most of the proposed projectswill never be built. US LNG is only competitive in the Pacific basin, if long term gas prices are belowUS$4/mscf and oil prices above US$80/bbl. This is counter to current long term strip prices for

Brent and Henry Hub which implies that the arbitrage opportunity is closed. As a result, we expect buyers' appetite for US LNG to be diminished as they reappraise supply options in a lower oil priceenvironment.

∑

While reduced spreads with US gas opens up opportunities for projects outside of the US, LNGindustry costs will have to be reduced significantly for new projects to compete successfully. Part ofthis cost reduction will come from service industry deflation and part will come from relocation of projects away from Australia and towards lower cost centers. Outside of the US, we expect continuedexpansion in Papua New Guinea and the emergence of new centers in Canada and Mozambique over thecoming years assuming costs can be lowered to make projects globally competitive.

∑ Within the LNG industry we favor Oil Search, InterOil and Inpex as some of the best ways to

invest in the LNG industry following the recent pull back in equity prices. While many of the LNGstocks have been negatively impacted by the fall in commodity prices, we still see value within the sectoron long term prices of US$80/bbl. Oil Search continues to look well placed given the recentannouncement by Exxon on Train 3. InterOil, which is also exposed to PNG, looks attractive given theTotal timeline of a 2017 start up for Antelope LNG. While Inpex has been at the higher end of the cost

curve, we still see value in the stock which is well funded and could benefit from deflating service costsas it reaches the peak of the construction cycle.

Investment Conclusion

LNG is a classically cyclical industry given the long timescales (5 years) from investment to supply. It isnot today's market which counts, but the market in 5 years' time, which matters for new investmentdecisions. We are now in a 'classic cycle'. Supply is ramping as commodity price volatility and increasedanxiety over global growth create uncertainty in the minds of buyers and sellers. As a result we expectinvestment in new LNG projects to slow down dramatically this year as decisions on long term contractsare deferred. Long term demand for gas and LNG looks robust as ever to us however as the world shifts tolower carbon fuels (helped by lower prices). We forecast that 90mtpa of new projects are required to besanctioned between now and 2020 to meet long term demand.

Where will these new projects come from? While US projects have been the most competitive relative tointernational projects, the pendulum has swung the other way with long term oil prices now implying LNG prices lower than what US LNG can deliver. For projects outside the US to move forward however, costsneed to come down. The international LNG industry will need to respond to lower oil prices by loweringthe cost of new projects from US$4000/t towards US$2000-US$3000/t to regain competitiveness. Weexpect the industry to achieve this by relocating projects from high cost (Australia) to low cost regions, better technology and through service industry deflation. Our top picks in global LNG are Oil Search,




a s

January 21, 2015


3

InterOil (both exposed to lower cost Papua New Guinea) and Inpex where valuations look too low, even ona long term price of US$80/bbl.

Details

LNG is a classically cyclical industry given the long investment timescales (5 years) from investment tosupply. Over the next 2 years we expect over 60mtpa of new supply growth as the wave of Australian LNG projects sanctioned in 2010/11 start up in what will be the strongest ramp up in supply since the start-up ofQatar LNG in 2007/8. At the same time however, we expect few new LNG projects to be sanctioned asvolatility in commodity prices results in buyers and sellers stalling on new long term LNG contracts, just asit did in 2008/9.

Exhibit 1Australian projects that reached FID in 2011 and 2012 will lead to a capacity surge in 2015 and 2016. We expect thenext FID cycle to begin in 2019.

Source: Bernstein estimates and analysis

This will not last however and the buyers cannot defer new investment decisions indefinitely. We expectglobal LNG demand to reach 355mtpa by 2020 and 440mtpa by 2025. Assuming capacity utilization of

90%, we need 490mpta of capacity by 2025. Taking into account existing capacity and projects underconstruction, we currently see a 90mtpa in supply be 20205. With construction time scales of 5 years, thismeans 90mtpa of new projects sanctioned by 2020.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

m t p a

Liquifaction Capacity Additions FID




a s

January 21, 2015


4

Exhibit 2Global LNG spare capacity based on projects in operation, under construction

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein estimates and analysis

Exhibit 3To meet demand in 2025, it requires 490mtpa of liquefaction capacity in operation assuming a 90% utilization rate.Base capacity can only provide 395mtpa, leaving a 92mtpa gap to be supplied from new projects


Where will these new projects come from? Falling oil prices have had a dramatic impact on LNG prices.Given the close relationship between LNG prices and oil prices, we have seen LNG prices drop toUS$9/mscf. Given the lag between LNG prices and oil prices, it is possible that LNG prices could testUS$8/mscf.

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(60)

(40)

(20)

-

20

40

60

80

100

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

2 0 2 1 E

2 0 2 2 E

2 0 2 3 E

2 0 2 4 E

2 0 2 5 E

% o

f G l o b a l D e m a n d

S p a r e B a s e C a p a c i t y ( m m t )

Spare Base Capacity % of Demand

90mtpa of new projects need to besanctioned by 2020 to meet long-term market demand in 2025

2011 2012 2013 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 2024E 2025E

Global LNG Demand 239 237 231 244 268 288 301 318 338 355 370 386 402 420 438

Assuming 90% Utilization Rate

Total Required Capacity 265 263 256 271 297 320 335 353 375 394 411 428 447 467 487

Total Base Capacity

Existing Capacity 276 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280

Declines (6) (8) (10) (12) (18) (24) (26) (27) (27) (27) (28) (30) (31) (33) (34)

In Construction Capacity (Cumulative) 5 21 49 88 105 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Total Base Capacity 269 272 275 288 311 344 359 403 403 403 401 400 398 397 395

Capacity Gap (Surplus) (4) (9) (19) (17) (14) (24) (25) (50) (28) (9) 9 29 49 70 92




a s

January 21, 2015


5

Exhibit 4High cost LNG project will be difficult to get sanctioned at US$60/bbl Brent

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates

This creates a problem for the industry given the high fixed costs and prices required to generate aninvestment return. Australian projects have been built for a triple digit oil price world. Projects such asGorgon and Wheatstone require a price of close to US$14/mscf (equivalent to US$100/bbl oil parity) tomake a marginal return on investment. While the long term oil price of US$70-US$80/bbl still implies longterm LNG prices of US$10-US$12/mscf, several of the projects currently under construction would neverhave been built in the current oil price environment.

Exhibit 5Break-even price of global LNG projects assuming a 12% IRR

Source: Bernstein Estimates

-

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

18.0

21.0

24.0

J

a n - 0 1

J u l - 0 1

J

a n - 0 2

J u l - 0 2

J

a n - 0 3

J u l - 0 3

J

a n - 0 4

J u l - 0 4

J

a n - 0 5

J u l - 0 5

J

a n - 0 6

J u l - 0 6

J

a n - 0 7

J u l - 0 7

J

a n - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

J

a n - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

J

a n - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

J

a n - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

J

a n - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

J

a n - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

J

a n - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

J

a n - 1 5

U S $ / m s c f

Brent eqv price Japan LNG Prices Japan LNG Prices (SCB forecast)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

A d g a s T 1 - 2

Q a t a r g a s - 4

Q a t a r g a s - 4 ( T 7 )

A r u n

A t l a n t i c L N G 1

B o n t a n g

Q a t a r g a s - 1

A t l a n t i c L N G 2 & 3

Q a t a r g a s - 3

Q a t a r g a s - 2

Q a t a t r g a s - 3 ( T 6 )

Q a l h a t L N G

A t l a n t i c L N G 4

E L N G 1

E g y p t - D a m e t t i a

D a r w i n L N G

B r u n e i L N G

O m a n L N G

M L N G S a t u

M L N G T i g a

T a n g g u h

N i g e r i a L N G

D a r w i n

M L N G D u a

Y e m e n L N G

P e r u L N G

N W S T 1 - 3

N W S T 4

N W S T 5

A n g o l a L N G

N W S T 1 - 3

K e n a i

N W S T 5

S n o h v i t

N W S T 4

P N G L N G

Q C L N G T 1 & T 2

G L N G T 1 & T 2

S a k h a l i n 2

P l u t o T 1

A P L N G T 1

I c t h y s T 1 & T 2

W h e a t s t o n e T 1 & T 2

G o r g o n T 1 , 2 & 3 F

O B P r i c e $ / m s c f ( 1 2 % I

R R )




a s

January 21, 2015


6

Given the number of projects competing for market, the economics of new frontier regions will mattergreatly in determining which projects go first. Our core belief is that the lowest cost projects generally getdeveloped first. Over the past decade, the cost of developing LNG projects has increased significantly. Theincrease is similar to that of oil prices, which have increased 4-5 times over the past decade. Ten years ago,

the cost to develop an LNG project was around US$800-US$1000/ton. A new green-field LNG project inAustralia cost as much as US$4000/ton in the past two years (Exhibit 6). This is simply too high to becompetitive.

The international LNG industry will need to respond to lower oil prices by lowering the cost of new projects from US$4000/t back towards US$2000-US$3000/t to regain competitiveness. We expect theindustry to achieve this by relocating projects from high cost (Australia) to low cost regions, technologyand through service industry deflation.

Exhibit 6Oil Price vs. Marginal Cost of LNG Project (US$/ton)

Source: Company, Bernstein analysis and estimates

With the long term spread between oil and gas prices converging, the US is no longer as competitive as itwas. Spreads in gas price between Asian LNG and US gas have fallen by 50% from US$12/mscf toUS$6/mscf. With liquefaction and shipping costs of US$6.50/mscf, arbitrage margins are now negative.

While we still see scope for a few more US LNG projects, most of the proposed projects will never be built.US LNG is only competitive in the Pacific basin, if long term gas prices are below US$4/mscf and oil

prices above US$80/bbl. This is counter to current long term strip prices for Brent and Henry Hub whichimplies that the arbitrage opportunity is closed. As a result, we expect buyers' appetite for US LNG to bediminished as they re-appraise supply options in a lower oil price environment.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

C a p e x $ / t o n

B r e n t $ / b b l

Series2 LNG Cost $/ton




a s

January 21, 2015


7

Exhibit 7Henry Hub-linked vs Oil-linked LNG pricing

Source: Company report, Bernstein analysis

Overview of LNG Market in 2015

In the short to medium-term, we see downward pressure on prices as new projects start up in Australia andJapan starts up its new nuclear facilities. Over the next couple years, we will see the start-up of eight majorLNG projects in Australia, which will add a further 60mtpa in global LNG capacity. We expect this will

lead to weaker spot market prices, which should revert to oil parity pricing and long-term contract prices.While the re-start of nuclear reactors in Japan is an uncertainty, we see this event having a greater impact onfuel oil demand than on LNG demand in the near to medium term given the limited number of reactorswhich are likely to start up.

Longer term, the question is whether we are heading for a glut of LNG as a combination of new supplyfrom the US and new regions reaches the market. While buyers believe they are holding the upper hand in amarket, which appears increasingly gas long, we believe that they continue to overestimate new supply.While four projects in the US have reached FID, progress in Mozambique and Canada is going slower thanexpected. In addition to delays to new supply there are also problems with new supply as exemplified by the problematic start-up and ramp-up of Angola LNG. In SE Asia, surging domestic demand is curtailing the ability of exporters to export. The recent decision by Indonesia (one of the world largest producers) to

import LNG from the US highlights some of the shifts taking place in global LNG markets.At the same time we see the possibility of demand being better than expected. Lower LNG prices should stimulate demand. The recent tensions between Russia and the west over Crimea will only galvanizeEuropean leaders' determination to diversify gas supply towards LNG over the long run. South Americawas the fastest growing region for LNG demand last year (up 18%) which would have been hard to predict.In the Middle East, the UAE (also an LNG exporter) has announced plans to create a new LNG import hubat Fujairah as tensions with Qatar increase.

4.0

0.8

3.0

0.6

3.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Henry Hub Long termprocurement

Liquefication Plant losses Shipping via CGH

U S $ / m m b t u

The price of US LNG delivered to Asia will not becompetitive compared with oil linked LNG price atUS$80/bbl of oil price




a s

January 21, 2015


8

We remain positive on the outlook for global LNG as the world shifts to lower carbon cleaner fuels. We project global demand will almost double over the next 10 years to over 430mtpa by 2025. In this note wereview events in the LNG market in 2014 and what investors can look forward to in 2015 and beyond.

Global LNG Demand

2014 was another year of limited growth in LNG market. Global LNG demand in the first nine months of2014 came in at 174.5MT, 0.5% higher y-o-y (Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8Global LNG demand in the first nine months of 2014 came in at 174.5MT, 0.5% higher y-o-y

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis

Demand from Asia has been flattening off while European demand continues to decline (Exhibit 9).Demand from Latin America strengthened with imports increasing by 10% y-o-y over the first nine monthsof 2014 as lower rainfall caused a shift from hydro to gas for power generation.

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-

5

10

15

20

25

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y - o - Y G r o w t h

G l o b a l L N G D e m a n d ( M T )

Global LNG Demand Y-o-Y Growth




a s

January 21, 2015


9

Exhibit 9 Y-o-Y demand growth 3 months rolling average –demand from Asia and Japan flattening while European demandcontinues to stay below the previous year


In the last twelve months through to September 2014, Japan's LNG demand increased by 3.8MT. Most ofthe increase in Japan's LNG imports has been driven by the contracted imports from PNG LNG. Mexico'sLNG demand increased 2.5MT, which was the second largest increase in absolute terms (Exhibit 10). Lackof pipeline capacity along with rising demand led Mexico to increase its LNG imports. Chinese importsincreased by 2.3MT.

Exhibit 10Change in imported LNG volumes for the last 12 months


The largest declines in LNG demand were from Europe as utilities substituted natural gas for coal. Over thelast twelve months, the Asia-Pacific market remained the largest regional market and primary driver ofglobal LNG demand growth on an absolute basis with demand growth of 6.0MT, which was a 4% increase y-o-y (Exhibit 11). Middle East was the fastest growing region globally over the last twelve months,achieving a growth rate of 19% y-o-y. Both North America and Latin America grew LNG imports by 8% y-

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

J a n - 0 7

A p r - 0 7

J u l - 0 7

O c t - 0 7

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y g r o w t h r a t e

Japan Asia-Pac Europe World

3.8

2.5 2.3

1.10.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

(0.1) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0.9)(1.4) (1.4)

(2.2)(2.9)

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

01

2

34

5

J a p a n

M e x i c o

C h i n a

U K

B r a z i l

I n d i a

T a i w a n

K u w a i t

P u e r t o R i c o

A r g

e n t i n a

D o m R e p u b l i c

T h a i l a n d

T u r k e y

C h i l e

B

e l g i u m

C

a n a d a

P o r t u g a l

G

r e e c e

I t a l y

K o r e a

U S A

F r a n c e

S p a i n

Y e a r - o n - y e a r C h a n g e ( M T )




a s

January 21, 2015


10

o-y. The European LNG market continued to experience a steep decline of 18% y-o-y as competition withAsia pull cargoes out of the Atlantic basin and into Asia and utility company switched to coal.

Exhibit 11Asia is the largest driver in global LNG growth while Europe experienced sharp declines

Source: Wikimedia Commons, Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis

LNG Imports to Asia

Japan, Korea and now China are the three most important LNG consuming countries in the world withdemand continuing to grow (Exhibit 12). While Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been the engine of globalLNG demand, increasingly growth will come from other emerging markets in Asia such as China, India andthe ASEAN region. Despite the impressive growth over the past decade, per capita consumption levels ofnatural gas are still remarkably low in many Asian countries. Rapid economic growth, industrialization,demand for cleaner fuels and the slowing of nuclear post Fukushima all point towards natural gas as the fuelof the future. Asia is shifting from being a net exporter of natural gas (principally through Indonesian andMalaysian LNG) to being a net importer of gas. Of the emerging (non-OECD) Asian countries, China, Indiaand Thailand are already importing LNG and in the case of China, pipeline gas from Central Asia.Singapore, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia will start importing LNG over the next few years.

Asia

Middle East

North America

Latin America

Europe

0.6

8%

8.0

1.0

8%

14.6

-6.9

-18%

31.2

0.4

19%

2.2

6.0

4%

176.7

LTM Demand(MT)

LTM IncrementalDemand (MT)

LTM DemandGrowth (%)

Volumes for last 12 month as of Sept 14




a s

January 21, 2015


11

Exhibit 12Asian LNG imports grew by 2% y-o-y in the past twelve months through to September 2014


Japan LNG - What Will Happen As Nuclear Re-Starts

It has been almost four years since Fukushima left its mark on Japan. Since October 2013, nuclear powergeneration has dropped to zero and currently none of the 50 reactors are in operation (Exhibit 13). We

expect this situation to change in the second half of 2015 however as Japan begins the nuclear re-start process.

Exhibit 13The last two Japanese nuclear power plants also went offline in September 2013


-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

I m p o r t e d V o l u m e ( M T )

Japan Korea China Taiwan India YoY Change

0

5

10

15

20

25

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4 N u

c l e a r p o w e r i n o p e r a t i o n

( m i l l i o n k w )

Actual

*Fukushima

Japan nuclear power plantswent offline in Oct 2013




a s

January 21, 2015


12

As nuclear power remains offline, imports of LNG, oil and coal have all increased to compensate for theloss in nuclear power. However, with likely restart of nuclear plants, Japanese LNG imports may come inlower going forward while growth rates are already showing signs of leveling off (Exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14

Japan LNG imports surged after the earthquake in March 2011 but the growth rate has begun to slow down


Within Japan, there are clear signs that growth has peaked out as we reach infrastructure capacity limits(regas capacity, pipelines and gas-fired power plants). While there is a plan to add new regas capacity andadd a further 11GW of gas and coal fired power capacity, this will take several years to install. In additionto the infrastructure bottlenecks, the import of significant amounts of fossil fuel is placing a significantfinancial strain on Japan. Given the depreciation of the Yen, LNG prices are now well above their previous peak levels, even higher than in 2008 when crude prices reached their peak of US$150/bbl (Exhibit 15).

Exhibit 15The cost of LNG imports in Yen surged strongly year to date, coming in ahead of LNG price in USD


As a result, the balance of trade payments deficit has risen due to the increase in import costs of fossil fuels(Exhibit 16). In 2010, Japan had a surplus balance of trade of JPY5.4tn, which turned to a record tradedeficit of JPY11.5tn in 2013. In the first ten months of 2014, Japan has encountered a trade deficit of

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

4.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.08.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

*Fukushima

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

J

a n - 0 6

A

p r - 0 6

J u l - 0 6

O

c t - 0 6

J

a n - 0 7

A

p r - 0 7

J u l - 0 7

O

c t - 0 7

J

a n - 0 8

A

p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O

c t - 0 8

J

a n - 0 9

A

p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O

c t - 0 9

J

a n - 1 0

A

p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O

c t - 1 0

J

a n - 1 1

A

p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O

c t - 1 1

J

a n - 1 2

A

p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O

c t - 1 2

J

a n - 1 3

A

p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O

c t - 1 3

J

a n - 1 4

A

p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

U n i t c o s t s o f J a p a n L N G i m p o r t s

( U S $ / m s c f )

U n i t c o s t s o f J a p a n L N G i m p o r t s

( Y e n / m s c f )

Yen/mscf US$/mscf

Cheaper Yen adds burden toJapan LNG bill; LNG price close

to historical high in Yen term




a s

January 21, 2015


13

JPY11.2tn (up 27% y-o-y), which will clearly push the government into action to re-start nuclear powersooner rather than later.

Exhibit 16The aggressive depreciation of Yen helped exports, but imports of fossil fuels expanded faster than exports value. As

a result, Japanese trade deficits widens 27% y-o-y in the first ten months of 2014


Japan Ready to Hit the Re-start Button on Nuclear

While we have always considered it risky that Japan should rely so much on nuclear power given theseismically active nature of the country, it does now seem inevitable that Japan will re-start some of itsreactors in 2015. For LNG investors, the question is how quickly will the reactors come back on line andwhat will be the impact to LNG demand both near term and longer term.

Despite a pledge by the previous administration to phase out nuclear power over time, Shinzo Abe haschanged tack. At the start of 2014 following the re-election of Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Economy, Tradeand Industry Ministry (METI) released details of a new Energy Policy. The policy, which is in draft form

(currently with Cabinet for approval) calls for nuclear power to remain an important source of electricity forJapan. According to reports, the draft Energy Policy refers to nuclear power as "important base-loadenergy" but also states that Japan's nuclear energy dependency should be 'reduced as much as possible'.

Two reactors operated Kyushu Electric Power have received restart approval in November 2014 and arelikely to restart in early 2015. Looking into 2015, we see only a limited re-start of Japan's nuclear capacity.Given the more stringent safety tests, it is likely that at most 50% of the reactors will pass today's morestringent safety checks required for re-start. Japan has 54 reactors, of which 6 are now shut-down for evergoing through long term decommissioning, leaving a total of 48 reactors. Of these remaining reactors, thereare a number of problems with re-start:

- 10 of the country's 16 nuclear plants do not have an exclusion zone of 30km (the size of theFukushima exclusion zone)

- Fukushima Daini Plant is within the Daiichi evacuation zone and faces large scale local oppositionto re-start

- The Tsuruga plant west of Tokyo sits on an active fault and Chubu'a Hamaoka plant is located at the intersection of 4 tectonic plates

- Twelve reactors will reach or exceed the standard life expectancy in 40 years

60

70

80

90

100

110

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

O c t - 1 4

U S D : J P Y

T r a d e d e f i c i t ( B i l l i o n Y e n )

Japan t rade def ic it USD:JPY




a s

January 21, 2015


14

Overall we see about 30% to 50% (at most) of Japan's reactors coming back on-line over the medium termwhich means that at most we will see an 8-9MTPA reduction in LNG demand from the current peak levelsover the next few years.

We expect demand for LNG will remain high in 2014 and temporarily decline in 2015/16 as some nuclear

power plants come-on line and then will increase again towards the end of the decade as new supplies comeon line to levels which are similar to current. We expect that demand in 2020 will be close to current levelsat 89mtpa. Japan's contestable LNG market remains large given the incremental growth and the expiry oflong-term contract from Indonesia and Malaysia in 2016 through to 2018.

Exhibit 17Japan LNG consumption in 2013 reached 87.8MT; we expect demand for LNG will remain high in 2014 beforetemporarily declining in 2015/16


China – LNG Imports Continue To Rise

China has become the third fastest growing LNG market in the world over the past 12 months in terms of

incremental volumes. China LNG imports in the first nine months of 2014 came in at 15.07MT, up 10.8%y-o-y (Exhibit 18) as demand for clean fuels to combat pollution increased dramatically. Oil and coalimports by comparison were substantially lower.

Exhibit 18Chinese LNG demand in the first nine months of 2014 came in came in at 15.07MT, up 10.8% y-o-y


China's gas demand continues to be exceptionally strong and LNG infrastructure is growing rapidly(Exhibit 19). We expect that China LNG imports by 2020 will be double the level of imports in 2014 giventhe additional regas capacity, contracted volumes and continued pent-up demand (Exhibit 20).

70.0

78.6

87.1 87.8 90.4 88.6 89.4

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

L N G D e m a n

d ( m m t p a )

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


15

Exhibit 19China LNG terminals in operation and construction

Exhibit 20We expect China LNG demand to be strong in the next 5years

Source: Wikimedia commons, Bernstein analysis Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein estimates and analysis

Note: 2014 and beyond are Bernstein estimates

Regas capacity in China is being built out aggressively. We expect that regas capacity will increase from33mtpa in 2013 to 51mtpa in 2015 and 63mtpa in 2016. Two regas terminals came on stream in 2014.CNOOC's Hainan LNG receiving terminal received the first cargo of LNG imports in August 2014 and

Sinopec's Qingdao LNG receiving terminal has been put into trial operation in November 2014.

CNOOC's terminals in Shenzhen and East Guangdong are currently under construction and are expected tostart up in 2015. Sinopec is constructing regas terminals in Beihai and Tianjin, both of which are due to

completion in 2015. These four new LNG projects will add regas capacity of 12MTPA in 2015, bringingtotal regas capacity to be 51MTPA in 2015 (Exhibit 21).

Beijing

Shanghai

Hong Kong

Fujian

Guangdong

East Siberian

Gas\to China

LNG Terminal (approved)

Gas Basin

Pipeline

Planned Pipeline

LNG Terminal (pending)

Zhejiang

Jiangsu

Qingdao

Dalian

Tangshan

Shenzen

Myanmar

Gas to China

West Siberian Gas

To China

Turkmenistan Gas

To China

Beihai

Hainan0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4550

C h i n a L N G I m p o r t s




a s

January 21, 2015


16

Exhibit 21Chinese LNG import capacity is expected to reach 51MTPA by 2015

Source: Companies, Bernstein analysis estimates

India LNG

Over the past few years, India has been increasing LNG imports to compensate for declining gas outputfrom the Dhirubhai field. With a continued decline in domestic gas production, Indian LNG imports haveincreased 6.4% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014.

Capacity

Terminal mtpa Operator Status 2012 2013 2014 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E

Dapeng Phase 1 3.7 2006 CNOOC Operating 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7Putian Phase 1 2.6 2008 CNOOC Operating 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6Wuhaogou Phase 1 3.0 2009 CNOOC Operating 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Dapeng Phase 2 3.0 2010 CNOOC Operating 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Putian Phase 2 2.4 2011 CNOOC Operating 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4Ningbo Phase 1 3.0 2012 CNOOC Operating 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Dalian 3.0 2011 PetroChina Operating 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Rudong Phase 1 3.5 2013 PetroChina Operating 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Tianjin Floating LNG 2.2 2013 CNOOC Operating 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2Zhuhai 3.0 2013 CNOOC Operating 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Tangshan 3.5 2013 PetroChina Operating 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5Hainan Phase 1 3.0 2014 CNOOC Operating 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Qingdao 3.0 2014 Sinopec Operating 0.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Yuedong 3.0 2015 CNOOC Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Shenzhen 3.0 2015 CNOOC Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Beihai 3.0 2015 Sinopec Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Tianjin 3.0 2015 Sinopec Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Rudong Phase 2 3.0 2016 Petrochina Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Zhangzhou 3.0 2016 CNOOC Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lianyungang 3.0 2016 Sinopec Planned 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Shenzhen 3.5 2016 PetroChina Planned 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Operating 20.7 32.9 34.4 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9Planned 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5Total Capacity (mtpa) 20.7 32.9 34.4 50.9 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.4

Total Capacity (bcm/yr) 28.2 44.7 46.8 69.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2

Capacity (mtpa)




a s

January 21, 2015


17

Exhibit 22Indian LNG imports increased 6.4% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014 to compensate for declining domesticproduction


The Government of India finally approved a revised formula for pricing almost all domestically producedgas to $6.17/mmbtu on net calorific value with effect from 1st November 2014. Although the 47% rise ingas prices from $4.2/mmbtu earlier is a major step towards market based pricing, it still remains inadequateto kick start production offshore India, only region in India with meaningful gas reserves. Nonetheless,

inclusion of a premium for 'deep-water' gas portends to accommodative government policies, which shouldultimately make Indian E&P sector investable and increase domestic production offshore India over thelonger run. In the interim, however, we expect LNG imports to continue to increase to fill the gap betweendomestic production and consumption. Additionally, the Modi government also deregulated diesel prices,effectively rendering diesel uncompetitive against natural gas across various sectors. Moreover, with India'sacute focus on reducing oil subsidies, we expect demand for LNG will increase.

In lieu of rising gas demand across various sectors mainly fertilizers and CGD along with decliningdomestic production, India plans to expand its total LNG import capacity to 63mtpa by FY19 from currentlevels of 27.5 mtpa (Exhibit 23, Exhibit 25). While these are big expansions, there are major uncertaintiesas to whether India will be able to achieve this ambitious target. Nonetheless, as domestic supply continues to disappoint, six additional LNG terminals with total capacity of 28 mtpa are under various stages ofconstruction. We expect that LNG imports will increase more than twice from current levels to 35mtpa by

2020 (Exhibit 24), although we note that affordability along with hindrances to the development of gas pipelines remains a major risk to our forecast.

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

I n d i a g a s p r o d u c t i o n ( M T )

L N G V o l u m e ( M T )

India LNG imports India gas production




a s

January 21, 2015


18

Exhibit 23Map of LNG Terminals in India

Exhibit 24We expect India LNG demand to be strong in the next 5years due to the widening supply-demand gap

Source: Wikimedia Commons, company news, Bernstein analysis Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein estimates and analysis

Exhibit 25India's LNG import capacity is expected to reach 63mtpa by FY19

Source: Company news and Bernstein analysis.

Rest of Asia Demand

Korean LNG imports declined 7.5% y-o-y to 27.26MT over the first nine months of 2014. Restart of somenuclear power plants and mild temperatures have led to the slow-down in domestic gas demand (Exhibit

26). For Taiwan, LNG imports increased 5.7% y-o-y to 10.5MT over the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit

27).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

I n d i a L N G I m p o r t s

Capacity

Terminal mtpa Operator Start Year Status FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15E FY16E FY17E FY18E FY19E

Dahej 15.0 Petronet LNG 2004 Operating 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.5 12.5 15.0 15.0 15.0

Hazira 10.0 Shell/Total 2005 Operating 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0

Dabhol 5.0 GAIL India 2013 Operating 1.2 1.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Kochi 5.0 Petronet LNG 2013 Operating 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Kakinada (FSRU) 5.0 Shell / KSPL 2016 Planned/Proposed 2.5 2.5 5.0 5.0

Mundra 5.0 GSPC 2017 Planned/Proposed 5.0 5.0 5.0

Ennore 5.0 IOCL 2017 Planned/Proposed 5.0 5.0 5.0

Pipavav 5.0 APM Terminals 2017 Planned/Proposed 5.0 5.0 5.0

Gangavaram 3.0 PetroNet 2017 Planned/Proposed 3.0 3.0

Mangalore 5.0 ONGC 2018 Planned/Proposed 2.5 5.0

Operating 13.6 14.8 21.2 27.5 27.5 30.0 35.0 35.0

Under Construction and Planned 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 2.5 17.5 25.5 28.0

Total Capacity mtpa 13.6 14.8 21.2 27.5 30.0 47.5 60.5 63.0

Capacity mtpa




a s

January 21, 2015


19

Exhibit 26Korea LNG imports decreased 7.5% y-o-y to 27.26MT over the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 27Taiwan LNG imports increased 5.7% y-o-y to 10.5MT over the first nine months of 2014


European LNG – Demand Declines

The European LNG market continues to decline as competition with Asia pulls cargoes out of the Atlantic basin and into Asia. Demand for LNG in the first nine months of 2014 was 13% lower y-o-y (Exhibit 28)with almost every country within the region (except UK and Turkey) importing lower volumes than theyear previously.

-60%

-30%

0%

30%

60%

90%120%

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.55.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

-60%

-30%

0%

30%

60%

90%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volum e YoY C hange




a s

January 21, 2015


20

Exhibit 28Europe LNG imports continued to be weak with imports declining 13% y-o-y in first nine months of 2014


In the UK, demand for LNG increased 25% y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014 with North Sea gas production continuing to decline (Exhibit 29).

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

J a n - 0

8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0

8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0

9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0

9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1

0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1

0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1

1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1

1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1

2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1

2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1

3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1

3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1

4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1

4

Y o Y C h a n g e


Spain UK France Italy Belgium

Turkey Portugal Greece YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


21

Exhibit 29UK LNG imports increased 25% y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014 with North Sea gas production continuing todecline


In Europe's Mediterranean countries of Spain, France and Italy the drop off in LNG demand remains pronounced (Exhibit 31, Exhibit 32, Exhibit 33) despite the stabilization of economic growth.

Exhibit 30Spain LNG imports declined as economic conditions worsen


0.00.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

V o l u m e ( M T )

UK LNG imports UK North Sea Gas Production

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


22

Exhibit 31France LNG imports declined 29% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 32Italy LNG imports weakened on the back of its economic conditions


North America LNG imports came in 3.9% higher y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014 owing to surgingdemand in Mexico

North American LNG imports increased 3.9% to 5.88 million tons in the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit

33). Despite the contraction in demand in the US and Canada, overall north American imports weresu pported by surging demand in Mexico, which came in a significant 40% higher y-o-y in the first ninemonths of 2014 and more than offset the weakness in the rest of North America.

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


23

Exhibit 33North America LNG imports came in 3.9% higher y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014 on the back of higher demandfrom Mexico


Exhibit 34US LNG imports dropped with strong domestic supplies of gas


While the US declined, Mexican LNG imports surged 40% y-o-y to 4.66MT in the first nine months of2014 (Exhibit 35). Rising gas demand combined with falling domestic production and limited pipelineca pacities have led to the surge of LNG imports in Mexico. Given likely increases in supply of gas from theUS to Mexico and pricing differential of US gas relative to LNG, the sustainability of this growth is lessclear.

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4


Canada Mexico USA YoY Change

-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


24

Exhibit 35Mexico LNG imports surged 40% y-o-y to 4.66MT in the first nine months of 2014


South America LNG Imports Ramp Up

While LNG demand in Europe weakened, demand from Brazil and Puerto Rico strengthened in 2014 whichled combined Latin American imports increasing by 10% y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit

36). Brazil LNG imports surged 25.2% y-o-y over the same period (Exhibit 38) as the main hydroelectricreservoirs remained at low levels after a prolonged drought, which resulted in more LNG imports tocompensate for the hydroelectric shortfall. Elsewhere in the region, demand in Dominican Republic alsoincreased as demand for gas outpaced domestic supply volumes (Exhibit 37).

Exhibit 36

South America LNG imports increased 10% y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014


-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e


Brazil Argentina Chile DomRepublic PuertoRico South Americas




a s

January 21, 2015


25

Exhibit 37Argentina LNG imports were flat y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 38Imports by Brazil surged 25.2% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 39Chile LNG imports dropped by 1.6% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

-100%

-50%0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y

o Y C h a n g e

V o

l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


26

LNG Exports

In the first nine months of 2014, global LNG supply essentially remained stable, up 0.4% Y-o-Y (Exhibit

40). Despite the start-up of 6.9 MTPA PNG LNG project, supply disruptions in Egypt largely offset theincrease from PNG LNG.

Exhibit 40 Y-o-Y supply growth 3 months rolling average


-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

M a r - 0 7

J u n - 0 7

S e p - 0 7

D e c - 0 7

M a r - 0 8

J u n - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

D e c - 0 8

M a r - 0 9

J u n - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

D e c - 0 9

M a r - 1 0

J u n - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

D e c - 1 0

M a r - 1 1

J u n - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

D e c - 1 1

M a r - 1 2

J u n - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

D e c - 1 2

M a r - 1 3

J u n - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

D e c - 1 3

M a r - 1 4

J u n - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y

o Y g r o w t h r a t e

Middle East Southeast Asia Australia Africa World




a s

January 21, 2015


27

Exhibit 41LNG Export Volumes by Country – Qatar contributes to majority of the incremental supply


In the last twelve months (through September 2014), the decline in LNG exports from Egypt was the mostremarkable with a drop of 3.2mtpa (Exhibit 42), followed by Brunei with a decline of 1.5mtpa. PNG and Nigeria offset this decline with an increase in LNG exports of 2.7mtpa and 1.7mtpa respectively. In ourview, it is only a matter of time before Indonesia and Malaysia become LNG importers in their own right asgas production from mature fields continue to decline and domestic demand grows.

Exhibit 42Change in exported LNG volumes (last 12 months)


-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

5

10

15

20

25

J a

n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a

y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e

p - 0 8

N o

v - 0 8

J a

n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a

y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e

p - 0 9

N o

v - 0 9

J a

n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a

y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e

p - 1 0

N o

v - 1 0

J a

n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a

y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e

p - 1 1

N o

v - 1 1

J a

n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a

y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e

p - 1 2

N o

v - 1 2

J a

n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a

y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e

p - 1 3

N o

v - 1 3

J a

n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a

y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

E x p o r t e d V o l u m e ( M T )

Qatar Malaysia Indonesia Australia Nigeria

Trinidad Algeria Oman UAE Egypt

Brunei Russia Other YoY Change

2.7

1.71.2

0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 -

(0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8)(1.5)

(3.2)-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

P N G

N i g e r i a

N o r w a y

A

u s t r a l i a

I n d o n e s i a

P e r u

A n g o l a

M

a l a y s i a

U S A

R u s s i a

Y e m e n

A l g e r i a

L i b y a

B e l g i u m

S p a i n

U A E

Q a t a r

E q .

G u i n e a

O m a n

T r i n i d a d

B r u n e i

E g y p t Y

e a r - o n - y e a r C h a n g e ( M T )




a s

January 21, 2015


28

Exhibit 43West Africa contributed to the majority of incremental LNG exports

Source: Wikimedia commons, Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis

American LNG Exports

Total LNG exports from North America fell 2.3% y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014 to 10.3MT.

(Exhibit 44, Exhibit 45).

Exhibit 44Total LNG exports from North America came in 2.3% lower in the first nine months of 2014


LTM Supply(MT)

LTM IncrementalSupply (MT)

LTM SupplyGrowth (%)

Volumes for Sept 2014

Trinidad

-0.8

-5%

13.0

West Africa

1.2

6%

20.7

North Africa

-3.2

-21%

12.0Middle East

-1.3

-1%

93.6 Southeast Asia

-0.5

-1%

47.3

Australia

0.8

3.5%

23.3

-100%

-80%

-60%-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.2

0.40.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

E x

p o r t e d

V o l u m e ( M T )

USA Trinidad YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


29

Exhibit 45Trinidad LNG exports fell 3.2% y-o-y in the first nine months


US LNG Exports – How Many Will Be Built?

The outlook for US LNG exports remains perhaps one of the greatest uncertainties in the global LNGmarket. While we still see scope for a few more US LNG projects, most of the proposed projects will never be built. At present, there are 40 projects identified in the US and Canada for LNG export, which are premised on the arbitrage between US gas prices and international gas prices (Exhibit 46). Total capacity inthe US is 278mtpa and in Canada is 103mtpa. The total capacity of these projects if they were all builtwould be over 380mtpa, which would exceed current total global LNG demand by over 50%.

US LNG is only competitive in the Pacific basin, if long term gas prices are below US$4/mscf and oil prices above US$80/bbl. This is counter to current long term strip prices for Brent at Henry Hub whichimplies that the arbitrage opportunity is closed. As a result, we expect buyers' appetite for US LNG to bediminished as they re-appraise supply options in a lower oil price environment.

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


30

Exhibit 46North America LNG liquefaction projects

Source: Companies, DOE, FERC, Bernstein analysis

Capacity Capacity Non-FTA

Terminal State Developer FID Start mtpa bcf/d Buyers DOE App FERC App

Sabine Pass T1&2 Lousiana Cheniere 2012 2016 8.0 1.4 9.0 Approved ApprovedSabine Pass T3&4 Lousiana Cheniere 2014 2018 8.0 1.4 9.0 Approved Approved

Cameron LNG Lousiana Sempra 2014 2018 12.0 1.7 12.0 Approved Approved

Freeport Texas Freeport LNG 2014 2018 13.2 1.8 8.8 Approved Approved

Cove Point Maryland Dominion Res. 2014 2018 7.2 0.8 2.3 Approved Approved

Corpus Christi Texas Cheniere 2014 2018 13.5 2.1 0.0 Under-Review Approved

Jordan Cove Energy Oregon Oregon LNG 2014 2018 6.0 0.9 0.0 Approved To Be Approved

Lake Charles LNG Lousiana ETE, BG 2014 2018 15.0 2.0 0.0 Approved To Be Approved

Astoria Oregon Oregon LNG 2015 2019 8.0 1.3 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Lavaca Bay Texas Excelerate 2015 2019 8.5 1.4 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Brownsville Texas Gulf Coast LNG tba tba 20.6 3.2 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Pascagoula Mississippi Gulf LNG tba tba 9.0 1.5 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Elba Island Georgia ETE tba tba 3.0 0.5 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Golden Pass Lousiana XOM tba tba 16.0 2.6 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Plaquemines Parish Lousiana CE FLNG tba tba 7.5 1.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Cameron Parish Lousiana Waller tba tba 1.2 0.2 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Ingleside Texas Pangea tba tba 8.4 1.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Alaska LNG Alaska XOM, BP, COP tba tba 15.0 3.0 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Gulf Coast LNG Export Texas Freeport tba tba 21.5 2.8 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

LNG Development Company Oregon LNG Development Company tba tba 9.4 1.2 0.0 Under-Review T o Be ApprovedSouthern LNG Company Georgia Southern LNG Company tba tba 3.8 0.5 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions Texas Excelerate tba tba 10.6 1.4 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

CE FLNG Louisiana Cambridge Energy Holdings tba tba 8.2 1.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

South Texas LNG Export Texas Pangea LNG Holdings tba tba 8.4 1.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Magnolia LNG Louisiana LNG Limited tba tba 4.1 0.5 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Gasfin Development USA Louisiana Gasfin Development USA tba tba 1.5 0.2 0.0 Under-Review T o Be Approved

Main Pass Products Louisiana McMoRan, United LNG tba tba 24.7 3.2 0.0 N/A To Be Approved

Venture Global LNG Louisiana United LNG, LP, McMoran tba tba 5.1 0.7 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Advanced Energy Solutions Florida Advanced Energy Solutions tba tba 0.2 0.0 0.0 N/A To Be Approved

Terminal State Developer FID Start mtpa bcf/d Buyers NEB App Permitted

KM LNG BC Canada Various 2015 2018 5.5 0.2 3.6 Approved To Be Approved

BC LNG BC Canada APA, CVX 2015 2018 5.5 1.3 3.6 Approved To Be Approved

LNG Canada BC Canada RDS, PTR, KG, Mits. 2015 2020 12.0 3.2 12.0 Approved To Be Approved

Pacific North West LNG BC Canada Petronas 2015 2019 12.0 2.7 0.0 Approved To Be Approved

WCC LNG BC Canada XOM tba tba 15.0 4.0 0.0 Approved To Be Approved

Ridley Island BC Canada BG tba tba 8.5 2.9 0.0 Approved To Be Approved

Woodfibre LNG Export BC Canada Woodfibre Nat Gas tba tba 4.0 0.3 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Triton LNG BC Canada Triton Investment tba tba 4.0 0.3 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Goldboro LNG NS Canada Pieridae Energy tba tba 5.7 0.7 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved Aurora LNG BC Canada Nexen tba tba 12.0 3.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Kitsault LNG BC Canada Kitsault Energy Ltd. tba tba 4.0 0.3 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Canada Stewart Energy Group BC Canada Canada Stewart Energy tba tba 15.0 4.1 0.0 Under-Review To Be Approved

Sub-Total US 277.6 40.7 41.1

DOE Approved 69.4 10.0 41.1

DOE + FERC Approved 48.4 7.1 41.1

Sub-Total Canada 103.2 23.1 19.2

NEB Approved 58.5 14.3 19.2

NEB Approved + Permittted 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total North America 380.8 63.8 60.3

Export Approved 127.9 24.3 60.3

Export Approved & Permitted 48.4 7.1 41.1




a s

January 21, 2015


31

Exhibit 47North America LNG liquefaction projects

Source: Wikimedia Commons, Bernstein analysis

We expect only a fraction of the projects which have been proposed will be built in the US. Specifically we

expect that only 5 terminals will be built in the US (although these could have large expansion possibilities). To build a liquefaction plant three things are required: approvals, customers and capital. Thefirst factor which will limit the number for projects which get developed is the approvals process.Approval for LNG is a two stage process requiring both DOE approval to export to non-FTA countries(which are the most important in terms of LNG demand) and FERC approval which is essentially the permitto construct the facility and takes into account local issues relating to health, safety and the environment. Sofar, six terminals have been approved for export to non-FTA counties. So far, only five projects (SabinePass, Cameron, Freeport, Cove Point, Corpus Christi) have received FERC approval. FERC approval ismuch more difficult to achieve than DOE approval to export to non-FTA countries. DOE approval to export to non-FTA countries is essentially a political process. There is a possibility that this could change withlegislation proposed in Congress to change export approvals to WTO member countries rather than non-FTA counties, which would open up the list of countries to most major LNG buyers.

FERC approval is much harder to obtain than DOE approval. Given the environment and technical studiesrequired, the cost to obtain FERC approval can be as much as US$50-US$100MM. This automaticallylimits the number of companies willing to risk capital to go through the process (which typically takes up totwo years to complete). Outside of five projects which already received FERC approval, there seem to befew other projects with the exception of Golden Pass, which have the partnerships and funding look capable of navigating the FERC process.

The second factor is customers. Ultimately, buyers will have a major role in determining which projectswill go ahead and which will not. The sale and purchase of LNG involves a small number of companies,

10

8

7

1819 20

4

2122

1312

15

2 3

5

6

1411

9

1620

23

mtpa bcf/d

# Terminal Sponsor Capacity Capacity

US

1 Sabine Pass Cheniere 16.0 2.6

2 Freeport Freeport 13.8 1.8

3 Lake Charles ETE-BG 15.3 2.0

4 Cove Point Dominion Res. 7.2 1.0

5 Coos Bay Jordan Cove 6.0 0.9

6 Hackberry (Cam) Sempra 12.0 1.7

7 Corpus Christi Cheniere 13.5 1.8

8 Astoria Oregon LNG 8.0 1.3

9 Lavaca Bay Excelerate 8.5 1.4

10 Alaska LNG XOM-BP-COP 15.0 3.0

11 Brownsville Gulf Coast LNG 20.6 2.8

12 Pascagoula Gulf LNG 9.0 1.5

13 Elba Island ETE 3.0 0.5

14 Golden Pass XOM 16.0 2.6

15 Plaquemines Parish CE FLNG 7.5 1.1

16 Cameron Parish Waller 1.2 0.2

17 Ingleside Pangea 8.4 1.1

Total 181.0 27.2Canada

18 Kitimat APA, CVX 5.5 0.7

19 BC LNG Var. 1.8 0.3

20 LNG Canada RDS 12.0 1.8

21 Prince Rupert Petronas 8.5 1.0

22 Ridley Island BG 8.5 1.0

Total 36.3 4.8




a s

January 21, 2015


32

usually the super-majors, national oil companies and large European and Asian utilities. Typically, smallcompanies who are not part of this 'club' find it difficult to break in. After all an LNG contract can be a 20year agreement which requires companies to take a long term view of their counterparties, and usuallymeans that only companies which have long standing relationships and experience will qualify Another

factor is how much 'Henry Hub price linked LNG' buyers actually want. As we have highlighted in previoussection, we do not believe the landed price of long term US LNG will be significantly lower than long termoil linked contract prices

On top of this, there is concern over the volatility over Henry Hub. From our discussions with Japanese andKorean utilities, we believe that Asian buyers want 20% of their portfolio on Henry Hub. This would imply50mtpa by 2020 and 60mtpa by 2025, which is substantially smaller than the 350mtpa of capacity currently being proposed by project developers. Japan has been a lead mover in the trend underpinning projects inCameron, Freeport and Cove Point with all the major Japanese utility companies involved (Exhibit 48).While US LNG will be price competitive with Asian LNG, it will not be dramatically cheaper as someexpect.

Exhibit 48

North America LNG liquefaction projects contracts

Source: Companies, Bernstein analysis

The third factor influencing supply is the capital requirements required for any LNG off-take scheme.LNG projects are multi-billion dollar investment and can only be under-taken by super-majors orcompanies, which have the explicit backing of well-funded utilities. While it is conceivable that some project sponsors could bypass the need to sign long term binding off-take agreements, the high capitalrequirements of these projects make it unlikely that any company, other than the super-majors would be

Terminal Buyer Country MTPA Start Duration Contract Type

Sabine Pass BG Portfolio 5.5 2016 20 Tolling Agreement

Gas Natural Portfolio 3.5 2016 20 Tolling Agreement

Kogas South Korea 3.5 2017 20 Tolling Agreement

Gail India 3.5 2017 20 Tolling Agreement

Total 2.0 20

Centrica UK 1.8 20

Hackberry (Cam) Misubishi Japan 4.0 2017 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

Mitsui Japan 4.0 2017 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

GDF Suez Portfolio 4.0 2017 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

Freeport Osaka Gas & Chubu Japan 4.4 2018 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

BP Portfolio 4.4 2018 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

Toshiba Corporation Japan 2.2 20

SK E&S LNG South Korea 2.2 20

Cove Point Sumitomo Japan 1.15 2017 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

Tokyo Gas Japan 1.15 2017 20 Tolling Agreement (Prov.)

Gail India 2.60 20

Kitimat Kogas Korea 2.0 2018 20 MOU

Gas Natural Portfolio 1.6 2018 20 MOU

LNG Canada Shell Portfolio 4.8 2020 20 Sales & Purchase

Kogas Korea 2.4 2020 20 Sales & Purchase

Mitsuibishi Japan 2.4 2020 20 Sales & Purchase

Petrochina China 2.4 2020 20 Sales & Purchase

Total US 49.9

Total Canada 15.6

Grand Total 65.5




a s

January 21, 2015


33

able to make this investment. In other words, ultimately the market (through binding long-term agreements)will decide how much LNG ultimately will be developed.

Africa LNG Exports

LNG exports from Africa in the first nine months of 2014 totaled 24.9mtpa, which was up 0.5% Y-o-Y(Exhibit 49). Supplies from Egypt (Exhibit 50) experienced a sharp decline of 90% y-o-y in the first ninemonths of 2014. Angola LNG had a problematic start-up and ramp-up with only two months of effectiveexports in 2014 (Exhibit 55).

Exhibit 49Africa LNG exports came in 0.5% higher y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 50Algeria LNG exports increased 6.4% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

1

2

3

4

5

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

E x p o r t e d V o l u m e ( M T

)

Algeria Egypt Eq. Guinea Libya Nigeria Angola YoY change

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0.0

0.51.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y

C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


34

Exhibit 51Egypt LNG exports experienced a sharp decline of 90% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 52

Exports from Equatorial Guinea decreased 21.2% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 53Libya LNG exports completely stopped since March 2011 due to the political situation


-120%

-90%

-60%

-30%

0%

30%

60%

90%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

0.0

0.1

0.2

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


35

Exhibit 54Nigeria LNG exports increased by 18.5% y-o-y in first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 55

Angola LNG only exported LNG for 2 months in 2014


A recurring feature of the LNG market is the arbitrage in pricing which has resulted in un-contractedcargoes in Africa being diverted to the Asia-Pacific region taking advantage of higher global LNG prices.Last year, African LNG exports to Asia continued to rise as exports to Europe dropped although recent points suggest a reversal in that trend (Exhibit 56). This trade continues to be stimulated by the premium between Asian gas prices and European prices. African LNG exports to Asia accounted for 48% of totalAfrican LNG exports in the first nine months of 2014, while the price differential averaged US$8/mmbtuover the same period (Exhibit 57).

-60%

-10%

40%

90%

140%

190%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume




a s

January 21, 2015


36

Exhibit 56Africa export to Asia is catching up to that to Europe

Exhibit 57Africa exports to Asia as of total (exports to Asia and toEurope) vs price spread

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis

Europe and Russia LNG Exports – Heading Higher

Exports from Europe and Russia increased 4.9% y-o-y to 9.5MT in the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit

58). Norwegian LNG exports increased 42.9% y-o-y (Exhibit 59) while LNG exports from Russia were up2.8% y-o-y in the first three quarters of 2014 (Exhibit 60).

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

D e c - 0 6

J

u l - 0 7

F e b - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

A

p r - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J u n - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A u g - 1 1

M

a r - 1 2

O

c t - 1 2

M a y - 1 3

D e c - 1 3

J

u l - 1 4

V o l u m e ( M T )

Export to Europe Export to Asia

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1012

D e c - 0 6

J u

n - 0 7

D e c - 0 7

J u

n - 0 8

D e c - 0 8

J u

n - 0 9

D e c - 0 9

J u

n - 1 0

D e c - 1 0

J u

n - 1 1

D e c - 1 1

J u

n - 1 2

D e c - 1 2

J u

n - 1 3

D e c - 1 3

J u

n - 1 4

E x p o r t s t o A s i a a s % o

f t o t a l

U S $ / m m b t u

Japan-NBP to Asia % of total




a s

January 21, 2015


37

Exhibit 58Exports from European countries and Russia increased 4.9% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 59

Norway LNG exports increased 42.9% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

E x p o r t e d

V o l u m e ( M T )

Norway Russia YoY change

-200%

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.60.7

0.8

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


38

Exhibit 60Russia LNG exports increased 2.8% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Middle East LNG Exports – Trending Lower

LNG exports from Middle East fell 3.3% y-o-y to 70.45MT in the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit 61) asQatar exports declined by 1MT, while exports from Oman and Yemen also fell, down 12.1% y-o-y and14.7% y-o-y respectively over the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit 62 and Exhibit 65).

Exhibit 61Middle East LNG exports decreased by 3.3% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n

g e

E x p o r t e d

V o l u m e ( M T )

Qatar Abu Dhabi Oman Yemen YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


39

Exhibit 62Qatar LNG exports were down 1.7% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 63

Abu Dhabi LNG exports were up 1.7% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 64Oman LNG exports went down by 12.1% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.07.0

8.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-50%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


40

Exhibit 65 Yemen LNG exports declined by 14.7% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Trade flows in Middle East sourced LNG exports exhibit the same trend as Africa's LNG exports (Exhibit

66). Higher Asian LNG prices resulted in the Middle East (ex. Qatar) sending 80% of its LNG exports toAsia in the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit 67) and increasingly less supply into Europe to takeadvantage of the pricing arbitrage which exists.

Exhibit 66Middle East export to Asia has always been much higherthan to Europe

Exhibit 67Middle East exports to Asia as of total (exports to Asiaand exports to Europe) vs price spread

Sour ce: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis

More Qatari export volumes have been supplied to Asia to take advantage of higher LNG prices in theregion. Qatar exports to Asia increased by 0.79 million tons in the first nine months of 2014 compared withthe same period in 2013 (Exhibit 69). In contrast, Qatar exports to Europe decreased 0.47 MT y-o-y over the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit 68).

-60%-40%-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.8

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY Change

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

D e c - 0 6

J u n - 0 7

D e c - 0 7

J u n - 0 8

D e c - 0 8

J u n - 0 9

D e c - 0 9

J u n - 1 0

D e c - 1 0

J u n - 1 1

D e c - 1 1

J u n - 1 2

D e c - 1 2

J u n - 1 3

D e c - 1 3

J u n - 1 4

V o l u m e ( M T )

Export to Europe Export to Asia

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.02.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

D e c - 0 6

J u n - 0 7

D e c - 0 7

J u n - 0 8

D e c - 0 8

J u n - 0 9

D e c - 0 9

J u n - 1 0

D e c - 1 0

J u n - 1 1

D e c - 1 1

J u n - 1 2

D e c - 1 2

J u n - 1 3

D e c - 1 3

J u n - 1 4

E x p o r t s t o A s i a a s % o

f t o t a l

U S $ / m

m b t u

Japan-NBP Exports to Asia as % of total




a s

January 21, 2015


41

Exhibit 68Qatari exports to Europe dropped as the country ships more cargoes to Asian buyers


Exhibit 69Qatari exports to Asia continued to grow with an increase of 0.79 million tons in the first nine months of 2014


Asia Pacific LNG Exports

LNG exports from the Asia-Pacific region increased 4.7% (Y-o-Y) to 55mtpa in the first nine months of2014 (Exhibit 70). The growth in Asia Pacific LNG exports is mainly driven by the earlier start-up andramp-up of PNG LNG. PNG LNG has reached full capacity in late July (Exhibit 75). Over the same period,

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

J a n - 0 8

A p

r - 0 8

J u

l - 0 8

O c

t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p

r - 0 9

J u

l - 0 9

O c

t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p

r - 1 0

J u

l - 1 0

O c

t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p

r - 1 1

J u

l - 1 1

O c

t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p

r - 1 2

J u

l - 1 2

O c

t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p

r - 1 3

J u

l - 1 3

O c

t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p

r - 1 4

J u

l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Spain UK Italy Belgium Other Europe YoY Change

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Japan Korea India China Taiwan YoY Change




a s

January 21, 2015


42

Malaysian LNG exports decreased 0.6% Y-o-Y to 18mtpa while Indonesia export volumes decreased by0.7% Y-o-Y. Australian LNG exports increased by 6.8% Y-o-Y in the first nine months of 2014 (Exhibit

71 to Exhibit 74).

Exhibit 70

Asia Pacific LNG exports increased 4.7% Y-o-Y in the first nine months of 2014 thanks to the start-up of PNG LNG


Exhibit 71In the first nine months of 2014, Indonesia LNG exports volume decreased 0.7% y-o-y


-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

E x p o r t e d

V o l u m e ( M T )

Australia Brunei Indonesia Malaysia PNG YoY change

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


43

Exhibit 72Malaysia LNG exports declined 0.6% y-o-y at 18.16 million tons in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 73

Brunei LNG exports were down 21.5% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


Exhibit 74Australia LNG exports volumes increased 6.8% y-o-y in the first nine months of 2014


-50%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-50%-30%

-10%10%30%50%70%

90%110%130%150%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

J a n -

0 8

M a r -

0 8

M a y -

0 8

J u l -

0 8

S e p -

0 8

N o v -

0 8

J a n -

0 9

M a r -

0 9

M a y -

0 9

J u l -

0 9

S e p -

0 9

N o v -

0 9

J a n -

1 0

M a r -

1 0

M a y -

1 0

J u l -

1 0

S e p -

1 0

N o v -

1 0

J a n -

1 1

M a r -

1 1

M a y -

1 1

J u l -

1 1

S e p -

1 1

N o v -

1 1

J a n -

1 2

M a r -

1 2

M a y -

1 2

J u l -

1 2

S e p -

1 2

N o v -

1 2

J a n -

1 3

M a r -

1 3

M a y -

1 3

J u l -

1 3

S e p -

1 3

N o v -

1 3

J a n -

1 4

M a r -

1 4

M a y -

1 4

J u l -

1 4

S e p -

1 4

Y o Y C h a n g e

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume YoY change




a s

January 21, 2015


44

Exhibit 75PNG LNG has reached full capacity in July 2014


Global LNG Utilization Rate

LNG markets are becoming less tight, as reflected in the fall in spot prices. Global LNG capacity(excluding Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria) utilization fell from close to 100% to below 90% in thesecond half of 2014 as new supply reached the market (Exhibit 76).

Exhibit 76World (ex. Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria) liquefaction capacity utilization averaged 94% in the first ninemonths of 2014


Utilization in Qatar averaged 98% in the first nine months of 2014 highlighting little room for incrementalgrowth (Exhibit 79). Utilization in Egypt remains low, due to political unrest and shortfall in gas input toLNG plants (Exhibit 78). Indonesia also continues to show low utilization rates (averaging 50% in the firstnine months of 2014) as mature LNG plants at Arun ends and Bontang continues to see declining output.Indeed, Pertamina plans to convert the Arun LNG plant into a regasification terminal to serve the domesticmarket with its last ever export order to Japan in October.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

J a n - 0 8

M a r - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

N o v - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a r - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

N o v - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a r - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

N o v - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a r - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

N o v - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a r - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

N o v - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a r - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

N o v - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a r - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

V o l u m e ( M T )

Volume

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

J a n - 0 8

A p r - 0 8

J u l - 0 8

O c t - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

G l o b a l c a p a c i t y u t i l

i z a t i o n

Capacity utilization Quarterly average




a s

January 21, 2015


45

Exhibit 77Capacity utilization – Algeria

Exhibit 78Capacity utilization – Egypt

Source: Bloomberg, Ber nstein analysis and estimates Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates

Exhibit 79Capacity utilization – Qatar

Exhibit 80Capacity utilization – Yemen

Source: B loomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates Source: B loomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates

Exhibit 81Capacity utilization – Trinidad

Exhibit 82Capacity utilization – Nigeria

Source: B loomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates Source: B loomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4 A

l g e r i a c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

E g y p t c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

Q a t a r c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4 Y

e m e n c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4 T

r i n i d a d c a p

a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4 N

i g e r i a c a p

a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n




a s

January 21, 2015


46

Exhibit 83Capacity utilization – Indonesia

Exhibit 84Capacity utilization – Malaysia

Source: Bloomberg, Ber nstein analysis and estimates Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein analysis and estimates

LNG Pricing – The Arbitrage Will Close

The shale revolution in North America has led to a decoupling of oil-linked LNG prices in Asia with gas prices in North America (Exhibit 86). This is about to change. Although US gas prices have dropped toUS$3/mscf, LNG prices in Asia have now dropped to US$9/mscf with the fall in oil prices. This impliesthat the spread between HH and Japan LNG prices will fall by 50% from US$12/mscf to US$6/mscf.

Exhibit 85Global gas prices remain at record spreads

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein Analysis

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

I n d o n e s i a c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

J a n - 0 9

A p r - 0 9

J u l - 0 9

O c t - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

A p r - 1 0

J u l - 1 0

O c t - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

A p r - 1 1

J u l - 1 1

O c t - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

A p r - 1 2

J u l - 1 2

O c t - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

A p r - 1 3

J u l - 1 3

O c t - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

A p r - 1 4

J u l - 1 4

M a l a y s i a c a p a c i t y u t i l i z a t i o n

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

J a n - 0

5

M a y - 0

5

S e p - 0

5

J a n - 0

6

M a y - 0

6

S e p - 0

6

J a n - 0

7

M a y - 0

7

S e p - 0

7

J a n - 0

8

M a y - 0

8

S e p - 0

8

J a n - 0

9

M a y - 0

9

S e p - 0

9

J a n - 1

0

M a y - 1

0

S e p - 1

0

J a n - 1

1

M a y - 1

1

S e p - 1

1

J a n - 1

2

M a y - 1

2

S e p - 1

2

J a n - 1

3

M a y - 1

3

S e p - 1

3

J a n - 1

4

M a y - 1

4

S e p - 1

4

N a t u r a l g a s p r i c e ( $ / m c f )

UK NBP Euro Spot US Spot Gazprom LTC Norwegian Oil-Linked Japan LNG Pri ce




a s

January 21, 2015


47

Exhibit 86Japan gas prices relative to US and UK: the price premium of Asian markets over the US and UK marketsremains high


Spot prices for LNG in China have weakened considerably (Exhibit 87). Towards the end of November, prices declined to US$9/mscf for delivery in February 2015. Part of this reduction is a result of falling oil prices and partly due to mild weather over NE Asia plus lower utilization levels within the industry.

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

16

J a n - 0 5

M a y - 0 5

S e p - 0 5

J a n - 0 6

M a y - 0 6

S e p - 0 6

J a n - 0 7

M a y - 0 7

S e p - 0 7

J a n - 0 8

M a y - 0 8

S e p - 0 8

J a n - 0 9

M a y - 0 9

S e p - 0 9

J a n - 1 0

M a y - 1 0

S e p - 1 0

J a n - 1 1

M a y - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

J a n - 1 2

M a y - 1 2

S e p - 1 2

J a n - 1 3

M a y - 1 3

S e p - 1 3

J a n - 1 4

M a y - 1 4

S e p - 1 4

U S $ / m m b t u

NBP - HH Japan - HH Japan - NBP




a s

January 21, 2015


48

Exhibit 87LNG spot price


Long-Term Supply/Demand Outlook

Over the next couple years, the increase in supply (mostly from Australia) (Exhibit 89) will result in a re-acceleration of demand growth as supply becomes available (80% of global LNG demand is still on longterm contracted supply). We see strong demand growth continuing from Asia as it shifts to lower carbonfuels and estimate global demand of ~355mtpa by 2020 (Exhibit 88). By 2025 we forecast global LNGdemand of ~440mtpa.

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

C h i n a

S p o t P r i c e $ / m s c f

1-Jul 8-Jul 15-Jul 22-Jul 5-Aug 12-Aug 2-Sep 16-Sep 7-Oct

14-Oct 21-Oct 28-Oct 4-Nov 11-Nov 18-Nov 25-Nov 2-Dec 9-Dec

16-Dec 23-Dec 30-Dec 10-Mar 31-Mar 20-Jun 5-May 10-Jun 30-Jun

10-Jul 30-Jul 25-Aug 15-Sep 27-Oct 10-Nov 24-Nov 8-Dec




a s

January 21, 2015


49

Exhibit 88Global LNG demand is set to grow at 6.3% CAGR through to 2020 and then increase at a slower rate of 4.3% CAGRbetween 2020 and 2025

Source: Bloomberg, Bernstein estimates

Over the next 2 years we expect over 60mtpa of new supply growth as the wave of Australian LNG projectssanctioned in 2010/11 start up in what will be the strongest ramp up in supply since the start-up of QatarLNG in 2007/8.

Exhibit 89Global liquefaction capacity installed by year – liquefaction capacity growth is set to accelerate in the next 3 years

Source: Bernstein estimates and analysis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

2 0 2 1 E

2 0 2 2 E

2 0 2 3 E

2 0 2 4 E

2 0 2 5 E

m t p a

Asia-Pacific Europe North America Latin America Middle East

LNG demand

contracted

in 2012

and 2013

6.3% CAGR (2013-2020)

4.3% CAGR (2020-2025)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

m t p a

Existing In Construction




a s

January 21, 2015


50

Taking our demand forecast and projects, which are in operation and under construction, we can calculatethe change in spare capacity over time for the industry (Exhibit 90). To meet long-term demand of 440mtpa by 2025, requires 490mtpa of liquefaction capacity in operation assuming a 90% utilization rate. Current projects in operation and under construction can only provide liquefaction capacity of 400mtpa by 2020,

leaving a 90mtpa gap to be supplied from new projects (Exhibit 91). Assuming that it takes 4-5 years to build a LNG facility, it implies that we need 90mtpa of new LNG sanctioned before 2020 to meet globaldemand needs in 2025.

Exhibit 90Global LNG spare capacity based on projects in operation, under construction


-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(60)

(40)

(20)

-

20

40

60

80

100

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

2 0 2 1 E

2 0 2 2 E

2 0 2 3 E

2 0 2 4 E

2 0 2 5 E

% o


S p a r e B a s e C a p a c

i t y ( m m t )

Spare Base Capacity % of Demand

90mtpa of new projects need to besanctioned by 2020 to meet long-term market demand in 2025




a s

January 21, 2015


51

Exhibit 91Start-up schedule of under construction LNG projects by 2020

Source: Bernstein estimates

With a long queue of US LNG projects, plus emerging LNG centers in Canada, Mozambique the EasternMediterranean and Russia, there is no shortage of possible projects, which could be developed to meet thisdemand need. We have identified a list of probable projects that are most likely to reach FID between nowand 2020 with combined capacity of 93mtpa (Exhibit 92). While this is not an exact science, we believethat a high proportion of the next wave of projects to be developed will come from this list.

2011 2012 2013 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E

Existing Projects 267.8 275.6 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9 279.9

Under Construction & Approved

Angola LNG 2.6 2.6

Skikda Rebuild 2.3 2.3

Gassi Touil (Arzew) 4.0

PNG LNG T1&T2 6.9

Sengkang LNG 2.0

QCLNG T1&T2 8.5

Donggi-Senoro LNG 2.0

Gorgon T1-T3 7.5 7.5

GLNG T1 3.9

APLNG T1&T2 3.4 5.6

Kanowit 1.2

GLNG T2 3.9

Prelude T1 3.6

Wheatstone T1&T2 8.9

Sabine Pass T1&T2 9.0

Ichthys T1&T2 8.4

Sabine Pass T3&T4 9.0

Yamal LNG 11.0

Cameron LNG T1 & T2 12.0

Freeport LNG T1 & T2 13.0

Cove Point 7.2

Rotan FLNG 1.5

Total 0.0 0.0 4.9 15.8 28.5 38.5 17.4 44.7 0.0 0.0

Cumulative 0.0 0.0 4.9 20.6 49.1 87.6 105.0 149.7 149.7 149.7

Declines (6.3) (2.0) (1.6) (2.4) (5.3) (6.1) (2.0) (1.2) 0.0 0.0

Cumulative (6.3) (8.3) (9.9) (12.3) (17.6) (23.7) (25.6) (26.8) (26.8) (26.8)

Total Base Capacity 269.4 271.7 274.9 288.2 311.5 343.9 359.3 402.9 402.9 402.9




a s

January 21, 2015


52

Exhibit 92List of probable LNG projects which have not yet reached FID

Source: Companies, Bernstein analysis and estimates

Exhibit 93Projects and date of FID approval/production in the next 5 years


Longer term, the question is whether we are heading for a glut of LNG as a combination of new supplyfrom the US and new regions reaches the market. While buyers believe they are holding the upper hand in amarket, which appears increasingly gas long, we believe that they continue to overestimate new supply.While four projects in the US have reached FID, progress in Mozambique and Canada is going slower thanexpected. In addition to delays to new supply there are also problems with new supply as exemplified bythe problematic start-up and ramp-up of Angola LNG. In SE Asia, surging domestic demand is curtailingthe ability of exporters to export. The recent decision by Indonesia (one of the world largest producers) toimport LNG from the US highlights some of the shifts taking place in global LNG markets.

2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 2024E 2025E

Total Base Capacity 359.3 402.9 402.9 402.9 401.4 399.9 398.4 396.9 395.4

Probable

Tangguh T3 LNG 3.8

Corpus Christi 9.0

Lake Charles 10.0

PNG LNG T3 3.3

LNG Canada 8.0

Mozambique LNG 10.0

Abadi LNG 4.5

Elk Antelope T1 & T2 7.0

Browse FLNG 4.0

Wheatstone T3 4.0

Kitimat LNG 5.5

Prince Rupert 8.5

Mozambique T3 5.0Tanzania 10.0

Total 0.0 0.0 12.8 13.3 8.0 21.5 13.5 13.5 10.0

Cumulative 0.0 0.0 12.8 26.1 34.1 55.6 69.1 82.6 92.6

Total Base & Probable Capacity 359.3 402.9 415.7 429.0 435.5 455.5 467.5 479.5 488.0

Projects/Year 2013 2014 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E

Angola LNG Gassi Touil (Arzew) D onggi-Senoro LNG GLNG T2 Ichthys T1&T2 Yamal LNG

Skikda Rebuild PNG LNG T1&T2 Gorgon T1-T3 Prelude T 1 Sabine Pass T3&T4 Cameron LNG T 1 & T2

QC LNG (Dec 29 2014) GLNG T1 Wheatstone T1&T2 Freeport LNG T1 & T2

APLNG T1&T2 Sabine Pass T1&T2 Cove Point

Kanowit Rotan FLNG

Sengkang LNG

Yamal LNG Cameron LNG T1 & T2 Tangguh T3 LNG Lake Charles PNG LNG T3 Abadi LNG

Sabine Pass T3&T4 Freeport LNG T1 & T2 Corpus Christi LNG Canada Mozambique LNG Antelope T1 & T 2

Cove Point LNG

FID approval and

start of

Construction

Start of Production




a s

January 21, 2015


53

At the same time we see the possibility of demand being better than expected. Lower LNG prices shouldstimulate demand. The recent tensions between Russia and the west over Crimea will only galvanizeEuropean leaders' determination to diversify gas supply towards LNG over the long run. South Americawas the fastest growing region for LNG demand last year (up 18%) which would have been hard to predict.

In the Middle East, the UAE (also an LNG exporter) has announced plans to create a new LNG import hubat Fujairah as tensions with Qatar increase.

We remain positive on the outlook for global LNG and continue to believe that prices will remain firm (oillinked) and demand growth will continue. We project global demand will almost double over the next 10years. While buyers may feel they have the upper hand they cannot delay investment decisions indefinitelyand will have to return to the table for new long term contracts.

Exhibit 94Global LNG spare capacity based on projects in operation, under construction and probable projects


Global Supply and Demand Summary

Our summary of global supply and demand is shown in the tables below. We expect that global LNGdemand will reach 355mtpa by 2020 and 440mtpa by 2025 (Exhibit 95).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 9

9 8

1 9

9 9

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

2 0

0 2

2 0

0 3

2 0

0 4

2 0

0 5

2 0

0 6

2 0

0 7

2 0

0 8

2 0

0 9

2 0

1 0

2 0

1 1

2 0

1 2

2 0

1 3

2 0 1 4 E

2 0 1 5 E

2 0 1 6 E

2 0 1 7 E

2 0 1 8 E

2 0 1 9 E

2 0 2 0 E

2 0 2 1 E

2 0 2 2 E

2 0 2 3 E

2 0 2 4 E

2 0 2 5 E

% o


S p a r e E x p o r t C a p a c i t y ( m m t )

Spare Capacity % of Demand

LNG markets will

continue to tighten

through to 2015

Next glut of LNG expected in

2020 depending on

2017-18 project approvals

Peak in spare capacity on Qatar LNG wave,

financial crisis and US shale gas boom




a s

January 21, 2015


54

Exhibit 95Global LNG supply/demand balance by 2025


Global LNG Demand by Country

(million tons per annum)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2023E 2024E 2025E

North America

Canada 1.7 2.1 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Mexico 4.2 3.1 3.4 5.0 7.0 9.5 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.6 11.0 11.3 11.6 12.0 12.3 12.7

USA 8.6 6.5 3.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8

Sub-Total 14.5 11.6 8.1 7.7 8.4 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.2 13.6 13.9

Latin America

Argentina 1.5 3.3 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.0 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.6

Brazil 2.3 0.9 2.8 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.1 6.7 7.4 8.1 9.0 9.9 10.8 11.9 13.1 14.4

Chile 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.1

Dom. Republic 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2

Puerto Rico 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0

Sub-Total 7.8 8.2 11.3 13.3 14.7 15.8 17.1 18.5 20.0 21.5 23.3 24.8 26.5 28.3 30.2 32.3

Europe

Belgium 4.3 4.3 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0

France 10.7 10.7 7.8 6.2 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.3 7.9 8.6 9.3 10.1 10.9

Greece 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7

Italy 6.5 6.2 4.9 3.9 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.8 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.3

Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Portugal 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5

Spain 20.9 17.1 14.5 9.4 7.6 8.2 8.9 9.7 10.6 11.5 12.4 13.5 14.6 15.9 17.2 18.7

Turkey 5.0 4.2 5.7 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.6 7.1 7.7 8.4 9.1 9.9 10.7

UK 13.7 18.3 10.6 6.9 8.6 9.4 10.2 11.1 12.0 13.1 14.2 15.4 16.7 18.1 19.6 21.3

Sub-Total 64.1 63.8 48.3 34.2 30.0 32.6 35.4 38.5 41.8 45.4 49.3 53.5 58.1 63.0 68.4 74.2

Middle East

Kuwait 0.6 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0

UAE 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Israel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Pakistan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Sub-Total 0.7 2.9 3.0 2.7 5.3 8.5 10.3 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.3 11.5 11.8 12.0 12.3 12.5

Asia Pacific

China 9.9 12.2 14.7 18.6 20.7 28.7 38.4 38.4 40.8 45.3 45.3 47.5 49.9 52.4 55.0 57.8

India 8.8 12.1 14.4 12.1 13.3 14.6 16.8 20.2 24.2 29.0 34.8 36.6 38.4 40.3 42.3 44.5

Japan 70.0 78.6 87.1 87.8 90.4 88.6 85.9 86.8 87.7 88.5 89.4 90.3 91.2 92.1 93.1 94.0

Korea 32.6 36.7 36.3 40.2 37.2 38.7 40.3 41.9 43.6 45.3 47.1 49.0 51.0 53.0 55.1 57.3

Taiwan 11.2 12.0 12.7 12.8 13.5 14.1 14.8 15.6 16.4 17.2 18.1 19.0 19.9 20.9 21.9 23.0

Singapore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Thailand 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

Indonesia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

Malaysia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Sub-Total 132.9 152.3 166.2 172.7 185.4 199.7 214.3 222.4 233.6 247.8 258.7 267.4 276.4 285.8 295.5 305.6

Global Demand 220.0 238.9 236.8 230.7 243.7 267.5 288.2 301.2 317.8 337.8 354.8 369.8 385.6 402.3 419.9 438.5

Global Demand Growth 20.5% 8.6% -0.9% -2.6% 5.7% 9.8% 7.7% 4.5% 5.5% 6.3% 5.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4%




a s

January 21, 2015


55

Exhibit 96Global LNG export capacity by 2025


Global LNG Export by Country 2002-2020E

(million tons per annum)

2010 2011 2012 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2020E 2020E 2020E 2020E 2020E

North America

Canada - - - - - - - - 8.0 8.0 13.5 22.0 22.0

USA 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 10.5 19.5 51.7 60.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7

Africa

Algeria 14.1 12.7 11.2 13.1 16.9 16.9 16.9 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1

Angola 2.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

Egypt 6.6 6.2 5.1 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7

Eq. Guinea 3.5 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

Libya 0.3 0.1 - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Nigeria 18.2 18.8 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7

Mozambique - - - - - - - - - 9.0 9.0 13.5 13.5

Asia Pacific

Australia 19.6 18.9 20.6 24.1 24.1 47.4 76.9 85.3 85.3 85.3 85.3 85.3 85.3 93.3 93.3 93.3

Brunei 6.6 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Indonesia 23.5 21.4 18.1 16.4 14.8 15.3 13.7 12.8 12.0 14.3 14.1 13.2 15.2 14.3 13.5 12.7

Malaysia 22.8 24.3 23.4 23.5 22.8 21.6 17.4 16.3 17.4 17.2 17.0 16.4 15.8 15.1 14.5 13.9

PNG 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.0 10.0 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9

Europe

Norway 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

Russia 9.8 10.4 10.9 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7

Middle East

Oman 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8

Qatar 56.1 74.2 76.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1

Israel - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UAE 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7

Yemen 4.0 6.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7

Rest of WorldPeru 1.3 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

Trinidad 15.5 13.0 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8

Total Global Supply 16.8 237.7 235.4 245.5 256.3 278.8 311.8 334.4 378.9 390.1 402.9 409.4 426.6 438.6 450.2 448.8




a s

January 21, 2015


56

Exhibit 97Global Regas Capacity – Operating and Under Construction By Country


Total Capacity by Country 2013 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2019E 2020E Argentina 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3

Belgium 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6Brazil 5.6 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9Canada 9.0 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7Chile 4.0 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9China 34.3 42.3 51.3 51.3 57.3 60.3 60.3 60.3Dom. Republic 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

France 20.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4Greece 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9India 22.5 27.0 27.0 37.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0Indonesia 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5Italy 15.6 15.6 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5Israel 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9Japan 192.8 197.8 205.1 205.1 205.1 205.1 205.1 210.1Korea 77.7 77.7 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5

Kuwait 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8Malaysia 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

Mexico 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2Netherlands 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5Pakistan 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5Poland 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6Portugal 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Puerto Rico 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7Singapore 3.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5Spain 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0Sweden 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Taiwan 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4Thailand 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Turkey 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7UAE 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8UK 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3USA 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1

Total Capacity 705.3 746.6 780.8 790.8 806.8 809.8 809.8 814.8




a s

January 21, 2015


57

Disclosure Appendix

Valuation Methodology

For Santos, Oil Search, Woodside, Inpex and InterOil, we believe an NAV approach is appropriate givena significant portion of their values are attached to future LNG projects. In calculating the NAV, we haveassumed a long term oil price of $90 (real).

European Oil & Gas

Our target prices for the European Integrated Oils are calculated by applying our estimates for 2015cashflow per share (CFPS) to a forward price-to-cashflow (P/CF) multiple. This P/CF multiple is generatedthrough the relationship, and historically strong correlation, between 12 month forward P/CF multiples andReturn on Average Capital Employed (ROACE) within the Integrated Oils group. Our calculation utilizesthis relationship and an estimated long term, through the cycle ROACE to generate the target P/CFmultiple. The price calculations for the Integrateds are summarized above. We use $80/bbl Brent for 2015and $90/bbl Brent in 2016.

Risks

Risks to energy and commodity stocks include economic conditions and commodity price swings. If theglobal, US or Chinese economies turn down significantly, global demand growth for commodities coulddecelerate, putting pressure on prices and thus on the cash flow of producers.



SRO REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

∑ References to "Bernstein" relate to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, Sanford C. Bernstein (Hong Kong)

Limited盛博香港有限公司, and Sanford C. Bernstein (business registration number 53193989L), a unit of AllianceBernstein (Singapore)

Ltd. which is a licensed entity under the Securities and Futures Act and registered with Company Registration No. 199703364C,collectively.

∑ Bernstein analysts are compensated based on aggregate contributions to the research franchise as measured by account penetration,productivity and proactivity of investment ideas. No analysts are compensated based on performance in, or contributions to, generatinginvestment banking revenues.

∑ Bernstein rates stocks based on forecasts of relative performance for the next 6-12 months versus the S&P 500 for stocks listed on theU.S. and Canadian exchanges, versus the MSCI Pan Europe Index for stocks listed on the European exchanges (except for Russiancompanies), versus the MSCI Emerging Markets Index for Russian companies and stocks listed on emerging markets exchanges outsideof the Asia Pacific region, and versus the MSCI Asia Pacific ex-Japan Index for stocks listed on the Asian (ex-Japan) exchanges - unlessotherwise specified. We have three categories of ratings:

Outperform: Stock will outpace the market index by more than 15 pp in the year ahead.

Market-Perform: Stock will perform in line with the market index to within +/-15 pp in the year ahead.

Underperform: Stock will trail the performance of the market index by more than 15 pp in the year ahead.

Not Rated: The stock Rating, Target Price and estimates (if any) have been suspended temporarily.

∑ As of 01/19/2015, Bernstein's ratings were distributed as follows: Outperform - 46.9% (2.1% banking clients) ; Market-Perform - 41.6%(1.6% banking clients); Underperform - 11.6% (0.0% banking clients); Not Rated - 0.0% (0.0% banking clients). The numbers in

parentheses represent the percentage of companies in each category to whom Bernstein provided investment banking services within thelast twelve (12) months.

∑ Neil Beveridge maintains a long position in BP PLC (BP).

∑ Accounts over which Bernstein and/or their affiliates exercise investment discretion own more than 1% of the outstanding common stock ofthe following companies BG/.LN / BG Group PLC, RDSA.LN / Royal Dutch Shell PLC, RDSA.NA / Royal Dutch Shell PLC, RDSB.LN /Royal Dutch Shell PLC, RDSB.NA / Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

∑ The following companies are or during the past twelve (12) months were clients of Bernstein, which provided non-investment banking-securities related services and received compensation for such services BP / BP PLC, BP/.LN / BP PLC.

∑ An affiliate of Bernstein received compensation for non-investment banking-securities related services from the following companies BP /BP PLC, BP/.LN / BP PLC.

∑ This research publication covers six or more companies. For price chart disclosures, please visit www.bernsteinresearch.com, you canalso write to ei ther: Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC, Director of Compliance, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10105 orSanford C. Bernstein Limited, Director of Compliance, 50 Berkeley Street, London W1J 8SB, United Kingdom; or Sanford C. Bernstein

(Hong Kong) Limited盛博香港有限公司, Director of Compliance, Suites 3206-11, 32/F, One International Finance Centre, 1 Harbour ViewStreet, Central, Hong Kong, or Sanford C. Bernstein (business registration number 53193989L) , a unit of AllianceBernstein (Singapore)Ltd. which is a licensed entity under the Securities and Futures Act and registered with Company Registration No. 199703364C, Director ofCompliance, 30 Cecil Street, #28-08 Prudential Tower, Singapore 049712.

12-Month Rating History as of 01/19/2015

Ticker Rating Changes

1605.JP O (RC) 02/18/14 M (IC) 06/13/13

BG/.LN O (IC) 01/22/09

BP M (IC) 08/03/10

BP/.LN M (IC) 08/03/10

FP.FP O (IC) 08/03/10

IOC O (IC) 08/14/14

OSH.AU O (IC) 06/29/09

RDS/A O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

RDS/B O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

RDSA.LN O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

RDSA.NA O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

RDSB.LN O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

RDSB.NA O (RC) 09/30/14 M (RC) 03/09/12

STO.AU M (RC) 04/20/11

TOT O (IC) 08/03/10

WPL.AU M (RC) 05/29/14 O (RC) 01/08/13

Rating Guide: O - Outperform, M - Market-Perform, U - Underperform, N - Not Rated

Rating Actions: IC - Initiated Coverage, DC - Dropped Coverage, RC - Rating Change



OTHER DISCLOSURES

A price movement of a security which may be temporary will not necessarily trigger a recommendation change. Bernstein will advise as andwhen coverage of securities commences and ceases. Bernstein has no policy or standard as to the frequency of any updates or changes to itscoverage policies. Although the definition and application of these methods are based on generally accepted industry practices and models,

please note that there is a range of reasonable variations within these models. The application of models typically depends on forecasts of arange of economic variables, which may include, but not limited to, interest rates, exchange rates, earnings, cash flows and risk factors that aresubject to uncertainty and also may change over time. Any valuation is dependent upon the subjective opinion of the analysts carrying out thisvaluation.

This document may not be passed on to any person in the United Kingdom (i) who is a retail client (ii) unless that person or entity qualifies as anauthorised person or exempt person within the meaning of section 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the "Act"), or qualifiesas a person to whom the financial promotion restriction imposed by the Act does not apply by virtue of the Financial Services and Markets Act2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005, or is a person classified as an "professional client" for the purposes of the Conduct of Business Rules ofthe Financial Conduct Authority.

To our readers in the United States: Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC is distributing this publication in the United States and acceptsresponsibility for its contents. Any U.S. person receiving this publication and wishing to effect securities transactions in any security discussedherein should do so only through Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC.

To our readers in the United Kingdom: This publication has been issued or approved for issue in the United Kingdom by Sanford C. Bernstein

Limited, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and located at 50 Berkeley Street, London W1J 8SB, +44 (0)20-7170-5000.

To our readers in member states of the EEA: This publication is being distributed in the EEA by Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, which isauthorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority and holds a passport under the Markets in FinancialInstruments Directive.

To our readers in Hong Kong: This publication is being distributed in Hong Kong by Sanford C. Bernstein (Hong Kong) Limited盛博香港有限公

司, which is licensed and regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (Central Entity No. AXC846). This publication is

solely for professional investors only, as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571).

To our readers in Singapore: This publication is being distributed in Singapore by Sanford C. Bernstein, a unit of AllianceBernstein (Singapore)Ltd., only to accredited investors or institutional investors, as defined in the Securities and Futures Act (Chapter 289). Recipients in Singaporeshould contact AllianceBernstein (Singapore) Ltd. in respect of matters arising from, or in connection with, this publication. AllianceBernstein(Singapore) Ltd. is a licensed entity under the Securities and Futures Act and registered with Company Registration No. 199703364C. It isregulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and located at 30 Cecil Street, #28-08 Prudential Tower, Singapore 049712, +65-62304600.The business name "Sanford C. Bernstein" is registered under business registration number 53193989L.

To our readers in the People’s Republic of China: The securities referred to in this document are not being offered or sold and may not beoffered or sold, directly or indirectly, in the People's Republic of China (for such purposes, not including the Hong Kong and Macau Special

Administrative Regions or Taiwan), except as permitted by the securities laws of the People’s Republic of China.

To our readers in Japan: This document is not delivered to you for marketing purposes, and any information provided herein should not beconstrued as a recommendation, solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial products.

To our readers in Australia: Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein Limited and Sanford C. Bernstein (Hong Kong) Limited盛

博香港有限公司 are exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of

the provision of the following financial services to wholesale clients:

∑ providing financial product advice;

∑ dealing in a financial product;

∑ making a market for a financial product; and

∑ providing a custodial or depository service.

Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, Sanford C. Bernstein (Hong Kong) Limited盛博香港有限公司 and

AllianceBernstein (Singapore) Ltd. are regulated by, respectively, the Securities and Exchange Commission under U.S. laws, by the FinancialConduct Authority under U.K. laws, by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission under Hong Kong laws, and by the Monetary

Authority of Singapore under Singapore laws, all of which differ from Australian laws.

One or more of the officers, directors, or employees of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, Sanford C. Bernstein

(Hong Kong) Limited盛博香港有限公司, Sanford C. Bernstein (business registration number 53193989L) , a unit of AllianceBernstein

(Singapore) Ltd. which is a licensed entity under the Securities and Futures Act and registered with Company Registration No. 199703364C,and/or their affiliates may at any time hold, increase or decrease positions in securities of any company mentioned herein.



Bernstein or its affiliates may provide investment management or other services to the pension or profit sharing plans, or employees of anycompany mentioned herein, and may give advice to others as to investments in such companies. These entities may effect transactions that aresimilar to or different from those recommended herein.

Bernstein Research Publications are disseminated to our customers through posting on the firm's password protected website,www.bernsteinresearch.com. Additionally, Bernstein Research Publications are available through email, postal mail and commercial researchportals. If you wish to alter your current distribution method, please contact your salesperson for details.

Bernstein and/or its affiliates do and seek to do business with companies covered in its research publications. As a result, investors should be

aware that Bernstein and/or its affiliates may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this publication. Investors shouldconsider this publication as only a single factor in making their investment decisions.

This publication has been published and distributed in accordance with Bernstein's policy for management of conflicts of interest in investmentresearch, a copy of which is available from Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Director of Compliance, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York,N.Y. 10105, Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, Director of Compliance, 50 Berkeley Street, London W1J 8SB, United Kingdom, or Sanford C.

Bernstein (Hong Kong) Limited盛博香港有限公司, Director of Compliance, Suites 3206-11, 32/F, One International Finance Centre, 1 Harbour

View Street, Central, Hong Kong, or Sanford C. Bernstein (business registration number 53193989L) , a unit of AllianceBernstein (Singapore)Ltd. which is a licensed entity under the Securities and Futures Act and registered with Company Registration No. 199703364C, Director ofCompliance, 30 Cecil Street, #28-08 Prudential Tower, Singapore 049712. Additional disclosures and information regarding Bernstein'sbusiness are available on our website www.bernsteinresearch.com.

CERTIFICATIONS

∑ I/(we), Neil Beveridge, Ph.D., Bob Brackett, Ph.D., Oswald Clint, Ph.D., ACA, Senior Analyst(s)/Analyst(s), certify that all of the viewsexpressed in this publication accurately reflect my/(our) personal views about any and all of the subject securities or issuers and that nopart of my/(our) compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views in this publication.

Documents

Bernstein LNG Sector Update January 2015