To thebest of my knowledge methane is an app. 124 times more potent ghg than CO2. The difference is that because methane deteriorates over 20- 50 years whilst CO2 takes thousands, methane's atmospheric warming potential is amortized, kind of in a time value of money way. It has been determined by the UNIPPC that a factor of 24 times worse than CO2 will be used for caculating emmisions reductions seeking carbon credits or offsets.
The figure of 24 times is derived by taking into consideration how long we have to get the climate warming under control but, as the climate data coming in continues to get worse serios conideration is being given to adjusting the time line and reassigning the ghg potential of warming upwards, way upwards, probably to the 100 times worse area. I dont know exactly how the math works but believe I have my facts mostly if not exactly right.
Methane leakage with fracking and distibution is quite a problem as new emmisions are being detected in the arctic as it warms. CO2 is plant food and can be balanced by preventing deforestation and expanding forest cover. It WAS in the air at one time after all. Methane on the other hand is the stuff of Venusian climate scenarios...scary stuff.
Improving research and technology may be able to use better drilling and well casing techniques and montoring for leaks with cameras and drones can help, irrespective of fracking. It would be nice if natuaral gas can help as a bridge to a better energy future...