Fundamentals

Summer 2019
Cautionary statements
Forward-looking statements
The information in this presentation includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of The forward-looking statements made in or in connection with this presentation speak only as of the
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange date hereof. Although we may from time to time voluntarily update our prior forward-looking
Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements, we disclaim any commitment to do so except as required by securities laws.
statements. The words “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “budget,” “estimate,” “expect,”
“forecast,” “initial,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” and
similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The forward-looking
statements in this presentation relate to, among other things, gas resources, production and costs,
infrastructure needs and costs, LNG export and pipeline capacity, LNG bunkering, LNG prices, future
demand and supply affecting LNG, and general energy markets and other aspects of our business
Reserves and resources
and our prospects and those of other industry participants. Estimates of non-proved reserves and resources are based on more limited information, and are
Our forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and analyses made by us in light of our subject to significantly greater risk of not being produced, than are estimates of proved reserves.
experience and our perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future
developments, and other factors that we believe are appropriate under the circumstances. These
statements are subject to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause
actual results to be materially different from any future results or performance expressed or implied
by the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include those described in the “Risk
Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and
our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are incorporated by reference
in this presentation. Many of the forward-looking statements in this presentation relate to events or
developments anticipated to occur numerous years in the future, which increases the likelihood that
actual results will differ materially from those indicated in such forward-looking statements.

Disclaimer
 Contents

 Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly

 U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply

 Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized

3
 2019 U.S. dry gas production (bcf/d)

U.S. Lower-48(2) Rockies/Williston

9.3 9.7

Jan Jul Appalachia

90.0
Midcontinent(1)

88.1 30.0 31.3

10.4 10.5
Permian
Jan Jul Jan Jul Jan Jul
9.7 10.0
Haynesville
Jan Jul
9.4 9.9
Eagle Ford
Jan Jul
4.8 4.8
Source: IHS Markit. Jan Jul The use of this content was authorized in advance. Any further use or redistribution of this content is strictly prohibited without written permission by IHS
Markit.
Notes: (1) Includes Anadarko, Fayetteville, Cherokee, Mississippian, Ardmore Woodford, Arkoma Woodford, Cana Woodford, and Granite Wash.
(2) Due to relative magnitude of production, production axis not at scale with other basins.

4
 LNG demand is growing 13.6% y/y in 2019

MT per month
2019
37
2019 expected capacity
LNG capacity H1 +13% y/y
35

LNG demand H1 +13.6% y/y

33
2019 LNG demand 2018 LNG demand
Utilization rate +600 bps y/y
31

29

27

25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sources: IHS Markit, Tellurian analysis.

The use of this content was authorized in advance. Any further use or redistribution of this content is strictly prohibited without
written permission by IHS Markit.

5
 Firm LNG capacity forecast

Global LNG capacity and output (mtpa)

Under construction capacity

Capacity 93
35 48 51 67
LNG output 4 24

324
298
264
248
408 412 412 412 412 406 401
377
347
318
292

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Source: Tellurian Research, Wood Mackenzie.

6
 Firm LNG capacity schedule
mtpa
Est. start
Project Country Capacity date 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Elba Island LNG Export T1-6 US East 1.5 8/1/2019 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Cumulative new LNG capacity by country
Ichthys T2 Australia 4.5 10/1/2019 1.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 100 (mtpa)
Vysotsk LNG Russia West 0.7 9/1/2019 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Sengkang LNG Indonesia 0.5 10/1/2020 – 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 US East Mozambique
Freeport Train 1 US East 5.1 9/1/2019 1.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
Portovaya LNG Russia West 1.5 9/1/2019 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Canada West Indonesia
Elba Island LNG Export T7-10 US East 1.0 1/1/2020 – 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 80 Malaysia Russia West
Cameron LNG Export T2 US East 4.0 2/1/2020 – 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Freeport Train 2 US East 5.1 5/1/2020 – 3.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Australia Senegal
Freeport Train 3 US East 5.1 10/30/2020 – 1.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
Cameron LNG Export T3 US East 4.0 9/1/2020 – 1.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
PETRONAS FLNG 2 Malaysia 1.5 1/1/2021 – – 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
60
Tangguh Phase 2 Indonesia 3.8 10/1/2021 – – 1.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
Coral FLNG Mozambique 3.4 1/1/2022 – – – 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Corpus Christi LNG Train 3 US East 4.5 1/1/2022 – – – 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Tortue FLNG Senegal 2.4 3/1/2022 – – – 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 40
Sabine Pass LNG T6 US East 4.7 6/1/2023 – – – – 2.7 4.7 4.7
LNG Canada T1 Canada West 7.0 4/1/2024 – – – – – 5.3 7.0
Golden Pass LNG T1 US East 5.2 5/1/2024 – – – – – 3.5 5.2
Golden Pass LNG T2 US East 5.2 10/30/2024 – – – – – 1.3 5.2
LNG Canada T2 Canada West 7.0 1/1/2025 – – – – – – 7.0 20
Golden Pass LNG T3 US East 5.2 7/2/2025 – – – – – – 2.6
Mozambique Area 1 T1 Mozambique 6.4 6/1/2024 – – – – – 3.8 6.4
Mozambique Area 1 T2 Mozambique 6.4 1/1/2025 – – – – – – 6.4
4.2 24.0 35.4 48.1 51.3 67.0 93.1 –
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Source: Tellurian Research, Wood Mackenzie.

7
 LNG capacity growth should peak in 2019
Incremental LNG capacity (mtpa)
50.0 14.0%
40
12%
40.0 12.0%
3
26
30 10.0%
30.0 9% 18
–
12 8.0%
20.0 8% 17
37 13
12 6.0%
26 8 26
10.0 18 4%
8 14 4.0%
9 5
4 4% 3
– (2) (1) –
(2) – –
(2) –
(3)
3% 3% (5) 2.0%
(8) (8) (2)
(2) (2) (3)
(10.0) (5)
–
(0%) (0%) (0%) (1%)
(20.0) (1%) (1%) (2.0%)

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
(1)
Existing Under construction Y/Y change

Sources: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian analysis.

Notes: (1) Percentage change of incremental volumes compared to previous year’s total capacity expected to be online.

8
 Contents

 Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly

 U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply

 Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized

9
 Plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas
Production growth and resource base from selected U.S. unconventional basins Resource
size, Tcf

Basin
Wellhead cost, $/mmBtu
411
Total U.S. lower-48 dry natural gas production
36.0
Bcf/d
29.2 135 53 RBN(1)

3.6 23 7.4

2018 2025
Anadarko 17 EIA
74 $0-$1.00 2018 2025
16.9
Marcellus-Utica
9.6
112 < $1.00
99

2018 2025 52 82

8.6 9.4
Permian 7.9
< $1.00 4.9

2018 2025
2018 2025 2018 2025 Production
Eagle Ford Haynesville
growth
$0 - $1.50 < $1.50
Source: EIA 2019 Annual Energy Outlook, DrillingInfo, RBN, Tellurian analysis.
Note: (1) RBN high case – extrapolated from 2024 to 2025 by Tellurian.

10
Permian gas outlook – range of forecasts
Permian dry gas production 2025 YE
(Bcf/d) production
• Permian gas supply
driven by oil
26 Pioneer(1) production
economics
22
Rystad/BP/EIA • Gas-to-oil ratios in
Wood Mackenzie/IHS(2) the Basin are
18 RSEG(3) increasing, meaning
Scenario – $70/bbl WTI(4)
wells are getting
14 “gassier”

• Consolidation and
10
more investment
from the majors
6 underpins resilient
20182018 20192019 20202020 20212021 20222022 20232023 20242024 20252025 production outlook
Sources: Rystad, Wood Mackenzie, RSEG, IHS, DrillingInfo, BP, EIA, Tellurian Research.
Notes: (1) Estimates based on guidance from Pioneer Energy. See https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ymld4hxz_zriyxkwqxdgmg2.
(2) Assumes 20% initial production (“IP”) improvement per year and flat completion activity levels.
(3) Assumes flat seasonally adjusted rig drilling and completion activity, and 2% upward shift in basin wide type curve per quarter.
(4) Current type curves (no improvement over time) and flat rig count based on current levels.

11
 Permian by the numbers

4.1 2.5-4.0 ~1 #4 -$0.90

million bpd Gas-to-oil ratio bcf/d ranking $/mmBtu
(“GOR”) 3-year avg. basis

One of the most prolific oil Average GOR in the Estimated natural gas flared The United States is among 3-year average basis for
basins in the world with Permian with higher GORs in in the Permian Basin every the top 4 flaring countries, gas prices in West Texas
extremely low oil the Delaware, the recipient day in Q2 2019 behind Russia, Iran, and Iraq compared to Henry Hub;
breakevens and negative of most investment as of August 2019, forward
breakevens for gas curve averaging -$0.55
production mmBtu for 2023

Sources: Rystad, EIA, World Bank, Platts via Marketview, and BTU Analytics.

12
 Looming challenge of U.S. gas oversupply
U.S. natural gas must be exported

Legend 2018-2025:
Operating/under construction LNG +7

Future infrastructure required +22 Bcf/d total gas supply growth(1)

+X Incremental gas supply by 2025 (bcf/d)
+12 Bcf/d excess gas supply(2)
+4
+100 mtpa LNG capacity required(3)

+1
+7

~$150 - $225 billion(4) of investment

+3 required to build 100-150 mtpa of LNG
and supportive pipeline infrastructure
to export excess U.S. gas supply

Sources: DrillingInfo, EIA, Tellurian analysis.

Note: (1) Assumes $70/bbl oil price and $3/mmBtu Henry Hub price; incremental supply comes from Permian, Scoop/Stack, Haynesville, Eagle Ford, and Appalachia.
(2) Assumes U.S. natural gas demand grows 0.6% p.a. and that the 7.4 bcf/d of LNG terminals under construction produce at a 90% utilization rate.
(3) Assumes new LNG terminals produce at a 90% utilization rate.
(4) Assumes new liquefaction capacity costs $1,000 per tonne plus an additional $70 billion of pipeline infrastructure to transport gas supply to the terminal.

13
 Contents

 Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly

 U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply

 Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized

14
 Global LNG demand pull
Key drivers

800 Capacity required(1)

China
9.3%(2)
700
~250 mtpa
9.3% p.a. growth rate
600
5%(3)
India 500
Under construction ~100 mtpa
400
In operation
300
Europe
200

100
New
markets 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Sources: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian Research.
Notes: (1) Assumes 86.5% utilization rate.
(2) Assuming sustained 2015-2018 demand growth rate of ~9.3% p.a. post-2019.
(3) Assumes estimate of 5.0% p.a. demand growth rate post-2020.

15
 Latent LNG demand from fuel substitution
There is substantial latent demand for LNG, which is competitive with oil prices and cleaner than coal

LNG prices trade between oil and coal prices ~1,359 mtpa LNG equivalent latent LNG demand
(2)
$ 16 2018 fuel consumption (mtpa LNG equivalent)

$ 14
885
$ 12

$ 10

$8

$6

$4
Coal-to-gas switching point
$2 208
170
$0 97
Jan 2016

Jul 2016

Oct 2016

Jan 2017

Jul 2017

Oct 2017

Jan 2018

Jul 2018

Oct 2018

Jan 2019

Jul 2019
Apr 2016

Apr 2017

Apr 2018

Apr 2019 Liquid maritime fuels Oil burned for power Coal burned for Coal burned for
(HFO) generation (ex-North power generation power generation
(1) America)(3) (EU + JKT) (China + India)
JKM Brent Newcastle
Source: ICE via Marketview, BP Statistical Review, Oxford Energy Institute Tellurian analysis.
Notes: (1) Newcastle coal includes a $15 per tonne shipping fee and is heat rate adjusted.
Gas is cheaper than oil Gas is cleaner than coal
(2) Assumes a 7,800 average heat rate for global gas-fired power plants.
(3) Includes Central America, Europe, Middle East, and Asian markets.

16
 Natural gas demand linked to renewables
Natural gas share in UK’s power mix grew to ~50% as higher Gas-fired power generation is a cleaner, more affordable,
CO2 prices incentivized dispatch of cleaner fuels and reliable backup to renewables

UK power generation by fuel Unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE)

mtoe
90
80 Wind
70
PV Utility scale
60
50 PV Rooftop
40
Coal
30
20 Nuclear
10
0 Gas CCGT
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
0 100 200
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro (natural flow) Wind Solar Levelized cost ($/MWh)

Source: UK Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (2019), Lazard.

17
 LNG required to offset Groningen declines
Netherlands capping production from the Groningen field requires ~10 mtpa of LNG
bcm
Groningen yearly production
54 Forecast
Netherlands

42 Mandated
production cap

28 28
24
22

15
12 12 12
8
4 3

Gas fields

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025
Earthquakes

Source: NAM, Energy Aspects.

18 Global LNG
 Emerging consumption: China and India
Population and economic growth imply significant upside to gas consumption in China and India

Size indicates relative Natural gas’ share of 2018 energy mix

GDP/capita
volume of gas
$80,000
consumed per capita in
2018 (mcf/capita)
$70,000
United States
$60,000 87 mcf/capita

$50,000

$40,000 European Union

38 mcf/capita 49%
$30,000

China 31%
$20,000
7 mcf/capita 23%
Argentina
$10,000 38 mcf/capita
India 6% 7%
2 mmcf/capita
$-
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 India China EU U.S. Argentina
Population (millions)
Sources: IHS Markit, SIA Energy, EIA, CIA World Factbook, BP Energy Outlook.

19
 Growing demand in China
Economic growth and emerging environmental policy drives demand growth

Chinese gas demand

billion cubic meters per year
510
438
120 LNG 4.5% CAGR
(2018-2030)
108

277

74 Domestic
391 production 6.1% CAGR
(2018-2030)
330 & pipeline
203
imports

2018 2025 2030

Source: SIA.

20
 Growing number of importers accessing LNG
The number of LNG importing nations has grown by ~60% in the last 7 years

33 total floating storage

and regasification units
(FSRUs) represent ~130
42
mtpa of global 40
regasification capacity as 39
of May 2019
34
30
29 868
Number of 850
830
importing
26 777
countries 751
721
Global regas
capacity 668
(mtpa)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: GIIGNL, IGU (2019), IHS Markit.

Notes: Includes Lampung, Nusantara, and Tanjung Benoa (all in Indonesia) and Northeast Gateway (United States).

21
 New demand from LNG bunkering
Cleaner burning LNG is becoming more popular as a fuel for marine vessels for IMO 2020

mtpa
Comparison of LNG bunkering forecasts
70
 LNG offers shippers a smart way to meet existing
and upcoming maritime emissions regulations
60

50
 LNG bunkering expected to grow substantially
over the long term as marine and transport
40
sectors seek a cleaner fuel alternative
30
― Unlike conventional marine fuels, LNG emits
20 near-trace levels of SOx, NOx, and PM
10  Total addressable market of 170 mtpa, based on
0 today’s global marine fuel oil consumption
2025 2030 2035 2040
 Over 120 LNG-fueled vessels already in
IEA Sustainable Development IEA New Policies operation, with over 130 on order or under
ENGIE/PWC Lloyds Register max
Wood Mackenzie
construction

Sources: OIES 2018, DNV-GL.

22
 Physical and financial liquidity is growing
Financial derivatives Physical liquidity

Lots JKM futures traded (10,000 mmBtu/lot) Spot and short-term LNG trade
400,000
Total trade (mtpa)
350,000 2019 annualized JKM swaps 99.3
Share of total trade (%)
JKM swaps
300,000 32%

250,000
77.6
74.6
200,000
69.6 68.4 27%
150,000 65.0 28%
59.2 29% 28%
100,000 28%
25%
50,000

0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Mtpa LNG 2019
equivalent 0.06 0.08 0.35 0.58 2.60 9.62 35.2 41.1
Sources: Platts, GIIGNL.

23
 U.S. emerges as the world’s largest LNG exporter
Based on firm capacity

30.6

Triangle of low-
cost supply

92.4
77.8
88.8
Current capacity (mtpa)
(producing and under
construction)
Source: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian Research.
Notes: Includes existing and under construction projects.

24
 Current LNG buildout has experienced cost overruns
Announced total capex cost increases for selected Announced liquefaction EPC cost increases for selected
Australia and Papua New Guinea projects existing and under-construction U.S. projects

Total capital costs ($ per tonne) Total capital costs ($ per tonne)

Ichthys LNG T1-2 Golden Pass LNG

Cove Point LNG

Wheatstone LNG T1-2
Cameron LNG T1-3
Gorgon LNG T1-3
Freeport LNG T1-2

APLNG T1-2 Freeport LNG T3

PNG LNG T1-2 Corpus Christi LNG T1-2

Sabine Pass LNG T5

GLNG T1-2
Corpus Christi LNG T3
Pluto LNG T1
Sabine Pass T1-2

Queensland Curtis LNG T1-2 Sabine Pass LNG T3-4

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 – 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Cost at FID Cost increase Estimated sunk regas costs Cost at FID Cost increase

Source: IHS Markit, Tellurian Research.

25
 Conversion factors
To:
1 billion cubic 1 billion cubic
Natural gas and LNG meters of natural feet of natural 1 million metric 1 trillion British 1 million tonnes
gas gas tonnes LNG thermal units of oil equivalent
(bcm) (bcf) (mt) (tBtu) (mtoe)
From Multiply by
1 billion cubic meters of natural gas
1 35.3 0.72 35.7 0.9
(bcm)
1 billion cubic feet of natural gas
0.028 1 0.021 1.01 0.025
(bcf)
1 million tonnes LNG
1.38 48.7* 1 52 1.22
(mt)
1 trillion British thermal units
0.028 0.99 0.019 1 0.025
(mmBtu)
1 million tonnes of oil equivalent
1.11 39.2 0.82 39.7 1
(mtoe)

1 MWh = 3,412 mmBtu = 3.412 mmcf

*includes 6.3% losses in transportation for international LNG trade

26 Conversion factors