the only part of your post that I disagree with is that hydrogen...

the only part of your post that I disagree with is that hydrogen is dangerous.. most of that attitude comes from the Hindenburg disaster, and it's unfounded. as it turns out, the chemical used to keep the hydrogen in the Hindenburg is the same stuff that risked fuel is made from today.

hydrogen is lighter than air, and will evacuate the space very quickly if a hydrogen tank is punctured, and if it is ignited off a hydrogen tank the flame will plume. the tank will not explode.

natural gas, is heavier than air, and can accumulate in lower spaces making it more dangerous than hydrogen.

In my opinion, if del wanted to go all the way with their carbon negative approach, they will work with Hazer, another Western Australian company that are splitting the methane molecule and making hydrogen and high quality synthetic graphite. this completely removed the co2 from the process even the methane is burnt. but

I do remember reading somewhere del aren't interested in hydrogen and will continue on their merry way.

if labour being in a carbon trading scheme. (likely in my opinion) and warranted. going the extra step would be funded as a 'carbon sink' and should earn good $$$'s

Hazer are also currently building a commercial demonstration plant at woodman point, on WA water's land taking bio-methane and removing the carbon and selling the hydrogen for fuel cell use. purifying it to 5 9's level.

will be interesting to see if by 2030 this Colaboration could happen.