It’s more likely that they will suggest doing this more directly using steam reforming which can be used to convert a wide range of hydrocarbon feed stocks including natural gas, petroleum products and coal gasification products more directly into hydrogen. It’s one of the technologies most often used in California in the US to fuel their larger scale uptake of hydrogen vehicles.
Similar processes are also used to produce ammonia from hydrocarbon feed stock for agricultural and industrial use including mining explosives. Australia already has plants in place that use the technology. We are apparently very good at it, making large scale hydrogen production a natural progression.
It’s worth noting (for those less interested in the chemistry) that the primary byproduct of all of these processes is CO2. Which is sort of OK if you have the worlds largest Coca Cola plant next door producing soft drink and Mount Franklin carbonated natural Bore (aka spring) water. It is also the most common MIG welding shielding gas, same source byproduct.
It’s an industrial solution that would suit two of the worlds largest chemical companies who are experts in the field. Perhaps not likely to find too much support for anyone looking for a zero carbon future.
The following link is informative on how the USA views hydrogen production. There are many other headings within the same resource that discuss alternate fuels in a way only the US can.
No prize though if you find the comment that increased hydrogen production and use of fuel cell vehicles is a great way to help save the existing USA petroleum resources.
From an environmental position there is a positive in producing hydrogen or ammonia for later conversion to hydrogen from hydrocarbons. That is in the instance the feed stock is fugitive methane (EG bio waste gas or fugitive emissions from other sources including mining), converting the methane to a useful fuel or fertiliser with CO2 is a better outcome than simply loosing the methane to the atmosphere. Methane is approx 30 times more damaging as a green house gas when compared to CO2.