Ann: Trading Halt, page-61

In your "table" you assume that the equity % is apportioned based on your formula.
That formula assumes LNG's stake is 60% plus its share of dollars of equity injected head to head versus Stonepeak.
While the math is elegant the economics don't work like that.

The way it does work is that Stonepeak gets a fixed IRR on its investment.
And as your table shows the $800m provided by Stonepeak does not reduce just because LNG tips more equity in.
Given the EBITDA is independent of who provides the funding (it is the same between scenarios) and given Stonepeak's return on its $800m does not change, neither does the share of profits that accrue to LNG.
In other words we have not changed the size of the pie - our economic interest has not increased just because we tip more capital in.

All that has been achieved is that our return on capital has been reduced - the same EBITDA accrues to LNG for more equity injection.

Sensible transactions require BOTH return on capital accretion and per share accretion. Focusing just on the latter ends up in stupid capital allocation decisions.
You can get per share accretion by borrowing at cash rates and investing marginally above it - it doesn't make it economically rational.

A finance degree with an excel spreadsheet is dangerous.