Jet engines don’t release the methane, they burn it, and they’re very efficient. And jets don’t leak fuel, that would be very hazardous.

LNG is not a nice liquid at room temp, so more use means more in transit and more complicated supply chains, meaning more leaks.

Right, but are leakage rates high enough to make this a concern? Every methane molecule leaked is a methane molecule not burnt, so there's already a strong profit maximisation incentive to leak as little as possible (even before considering loftier goals like workplace safety or externally imposed regulation).

> Right, but are leakage rates high enough to make this a concern?

According to a recent IEA report, 30% of the LMG supply chain’s greenhouse impact is methane leaks.

> there's already a strong profit maximisation incentive to leak as little as possible

That runs against the stronger profit maximisation incentive of doing as little maintenance and being as cheap as possible.

A major difference is: there is an economic incentive to not leak methane since a leak is wasted fuel, while the economic incentive for CO2 is to make more of it.

> A major difference is: there is an economic incentive to not leak methane since a leak is wasted fuel

That economic incentive only goes so far given the entire point of the discussion: LNG is cheap. Per the IEA's recent "Assessing Emissions from LNG Supply and Abatement Options":

> Our analysis estimates total GHG emissions from the LNG supply chain are around 350 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-eq) (this excludes emissions from combustion of the natural gas at the point of use). Around 70% of this is in the form of CO2 emissions which are either combusted or vented, and the remaining 30% is methane that escapes, unburnt, into the atmosphere.

> ...

> Globally, the average GHG emissions intensity of delivered LNG is just under 20 g CO2-eq/MJ, compared with an average of 12 g CO2/MJ for natural gas supply overall.