I had quite a few twitter discussions on this already. It's an interesting paper and I think a valuable contribution to the discussion. Though it should be not

I had quite a few twitter discussions on this already. It's an interesting paper and I think a valuable contribution to the discussion. Though it should be noted that the authors make a lot of assumptions (naturally) and some of them are quite controversial. They consider three different methane leakage rates, which are probably a good range for what's happening in the US, but it's expected that some european sources have much lower rates. Their assumptions on CCS are more pessimistic compared to what other people expect, but you could argue compared to existing CCS projects they're actually optimistic. Then there's a whole debate around GWP20 vs. GWP100, which is whether you look at the greenhouse effect of methane vs. co2 over 20 or 100 years. The authors prefer GWP20, which is not the mainstream climate science position, but they do some of their calculations also with GWP100. tl;dr It's definitely worth a read and the authors make good points, but consider that other people see things differently.