VG — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of VG's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-08-11 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-05-12
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +162 | −70 | ~30 | 14 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~2 | 1 |
| Legal proceedings | Text added/removed | +6 | −3 | 0 | 4 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | +3 | −1 | 0 | 0 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-11
Our income from operations for the three months ended June 30, 2026 increased compared to the prior year primarily due to higher LNG sales volumes from the Plaquemines Project as commissioning activities progressed and LNG production ramped up, and higher weighted average LNG sales prices net of fee…
Our income from operations for the six months ended June 30, 2026 increased compared to the prior year primarily due to higher sales volumes from the Plaquemines Project as commissioning activities progressed and LNG production ramped up, as well as lower development costs, primarily at the CP2 Proj…
Calcasieu Project. Our initial LNG export facility declared COD and commenced the sale of LNG to its customers under its post-COD SPAs on April 15, 2025. Prior to COD, the project sold LNG under LNG Commissioning Sales Agreements.
Plaquemines Project. Production and LNG sales from our second LNG export facility continue to ramp up as construction and commissioning progress. In March 2026, the DOE approved our application to increase authorized exports to Non-FTA Nations from 24.0 mtpa to 27.2 mtpa. Also in March 2026, we subm…
CP2 Project. Construction of our third LNG export project remains ongoing. In March 2026, Phase 2 of the CP2 Project achieved FID and we obtained $8.6 billion of additional project financing to fund its development and construction. During the six months ended June 30, 2026, we incurred $6.1 billion…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-12
Our income from operations for the three months ended March 31, 2026 increased compared to the prior year primarily due to higher sales volumes at our Plaquemines Project as a result of the continued ramp up of LNG production, and lower development costs at our CP2 Project following its declaration …
Calcasieu Project. Our initial LNG export facility declared COD and commenced the sale of LNG to its customers under its post-COD SPAs on April 15, 2025. Prior to COD, the Calcasieu Project sold LNG under LNG Commissioning Sales Agreements.
Plaquemines Project. Production and sales of LNG from our second LNG export facility increased during the period while physical construction and commissioning continued to advance. In March 2026, the DOE approved our application to increase authorized exports to Non-FTA Nations from 24.0 mtpa to 27.…
CP2 Project. In March 2026, Phase 2 of the CP2 Project achieved FID and obtained $8.6 billion in additional project financing to fund the development and construction of Phase 2 of the CP2 Project. During the three months ended March 31, 2026, we incurred $2.9 billion of project costs, the majority …
In February 2026, the CP2 Project executed a 20-year post-COD SPA for the delivery of 1.5 mtpa from Phase 2 of the CP2 Project, increasing the total expected post-COD capacity under contract from 26.0 mtpa to 27.5 mtpa.
Legal proceedings
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-11
On February 17, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint naming Venture Global, our directors and certain of our officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of a …
Further, on April 15, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint naming Venture Global, our directors and certain of our officers and our underwriters, as well as Venture Global Partners II, LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was subsequently t…
Further, on May 7, 2025, a putative shareholder derivative action complaint naming Venture Global, our directors, certain of our officers and certain of our underwriters was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was subsequently transferred to the Southern Distric…
On October 8, 2025, the ICC informed VGCP that a partial final award had been issued in the previously disclosed arbitration proceedings with BP regarding LNG sales from the Calcasieu Project under the post-COD SPA entered into by VGCP and BP. The award issued by the arbitration tribunal found that …
Company does not anticipate that the final award will be subject to the seller aggregate liability limitation in the BP post-COD SPA. The remedies sought by BP include damages ranging from $3.7 billion to potentially in excess of $6.0 billion, as well as interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. We belie…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-12
On October 8, 2025, the ICC informed VGCP that a partial final award had been issued in the previously disclosed arbitration proceedings with BP regarding LNG sales from the Calcasieu Project under the post-COD SPA entered into by VGCP and BP. The award issued by the arbitration tribunal found that …
In May 2023, Shell NA LNG LLC (“Shell”) submitted a request for arbitration to the ICC, in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures of its post-COD SPA, asserting, among other claims, that the Calcasieu Project was delayed in achieving COD under the relevant post-COD SPA. On August 12, 2025…
In May 2023, Edison submitted a request for arbitration to the London Court of International Arbitration, in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures of its post-COD SPA, asserting, among other claims, that the Calcasieu Project is delayed in achieving COD under the post-COD SPA. On March 2…
Other information
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-11
Other than as set forth below, none of our directors or officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act) have entered into a trading plan intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) during the three months ended June 30, 2026.
NameTitleDate of adoptionAggregate number of securities to be purchased or soldDate of expiration
In addition, none of our directors or officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act) have adopted, modified or terminated a non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement (as defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K).
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-12
During the three months ended March 31, 2026, none of our directors or officers adopted or terminated a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan or adopted, modified or terminated a non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement (as defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K).
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice