Corpus Christi LNG expansion makes facility the second-largest in the United States

Energy Information Administration, Liquefaction Capacity File Note: LNG=liquefied natural gas; FLNG=Floating Liquefied Natural Gas On August 28, 2026, Cheniere Energy, Inc.

, completed its Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage 3 Project (CCL Stage 3) in Texas, taking custody and control of the seventh and last liquefied natural gas (LNG) train in the project.

CCL Stage 3 , which started producing LNG in December 2024, is part of the larger Corpus Christi LNG Terminal in San Patricio County, Texas.

The additional capacity expands the total nominal capacity of the facility to 3.

1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), or 3.

With the addition, the Corpus Christi terminal became the second-largest facility in the United States after Sabine Pass in Louisiana, which has a nominal capacity of 3.

The project consists of seven midscale trains , with a combined nominal capacity of 1.

3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) and peak capacity of 1.

Production has been gradually increasing as each of the six preceding trains in the project have been completed and brought online.

An additional project, Corpus Christi Liquefaction Midscale , is under construction.

The collocated project includes two additional trains that will add 0.

4 Bcf/d of nominal capacity (0.

5 Bcf/d peak) and are expected to come online in 2028.

A summary of all existing, under construction, and approved U.

-based LNG facilities and projects is available on the EIA website.

This BasisPilot brief preserves the source's reported facts and publication context. The original publisher is U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the linked source should remain the reference for the complete release, later corrections, tables, quotations, and any information that was not visible in the extracted page. The brief is organized around what was reported, when it was reported, and which details a reader can verify directly.

Timing and context

The source publication time is recorded separately from the time BasisPilot retrieved the page. That distinction matters because company announcements, economic releases, and regulatory notices can be updated after their first publication. A date, amount, percentage, named entity, or status statement in this brief is treated as a source fact only when it can be traced to the linked document.

What readers should verify

Readers should compare the headline with the original source, check the publication date, review the issuer or agency named in the document, and distinguish reported results from forward-looking statements. Where the source describes a transaction, financing, filing, policy action, or market status, the relevant official filing or notice may contain additional conditions.

How the details fit together

A source-linked brief should be read as a sequence rather than as a collection of isolated claims. First identify the publisher and the document type. Next confirm the date, entities, amounts, percentages, and status statements in the source. Only then consider what the event could mean for a sector or a planning assumption. This order keeps an observable fact separate from a later interpretation and makes the article easier to audit when the publisher issues a correction or follow-up notice.

What is not being inferred

The brief does not infer a stock-price reaction, a change in credit quality, or a future operating result from the announcement alone. A reported dividend, result, policy action, or filing can be material without being predictive. Readers should check the company filing, agency notice, exchange release, or other primary document identified by the publisher when a decision depends on a condition that is not fully reproduced here.

Scope of the document

Official notices often combine a narrow operative change with definitions, procedural dates, affected parties, and supporting authority. Those elements should not be collapsed into a single headline. Before applying the update to an investment or market view, identify whether the document is a proposal, final rule, request for comment, administrative notice, or correction; confirm the effective date separately from the publication date; and check whether the source limits the change to a particular entity, transaction type, reporting period, jurisdiction, or instrument.

Record the source URL, actual publisher, publication timestamp, retrieval timestamp, and any reference period before using the information. Note which statements are historical, which are current status updates, and which are forward-looking language from the issuer or agency. Compare the source with related filings only after preserving the original wording and units. This process prevents a distribution platform from being mistaken for the issuer and reduces the chance that a headline is treated as a complete financial or regulatory record.

Recheck after publication

Company and regulatory pages can add exhibits, corrections, translations, or updated status notes after the first release. BasisPilot therefore keeps the primary link visible and records the source publication date separately from its own publication date. If the source changes materially, the article can be regenerated with a new retrieval timestamp and a new content hash while preserving the original source item identifier for deduplication.

This is an educational news brief, not personalized investment, tax, legal, or trading advice. A reported event does not guarantee a price reaction or a future outcome. BasisPilot does not fill missing facts with estimates, and it does not treat the distribution platform as the actual publisher when the source identifies another issuer. Source-linked details should be rechecked before making a decision.