To state the obvious the company at some time in the future...

To state the obvious the company at some time in the future recieve payment for it's commodities, hydrogen and graphite.

I am wondering whether the company should also recieve payment for something else that it will provide?

The removal of carbon from the atmosphere is what I am referring to.

If biomethane is used as the feedstock, the process becomes carbon negative as the carbon will be sequestered as graphite.  In effect, no carbon emissions to damage the environment.

Much has been said about how the coal industry could be saved if carbon emissions were be captured (carbon sequestration) and stored below ground.

Providing it could be done, who would pay for that service?

What I am wondering, is whether Hazer should not also be paid for carbon sequestration?

Again I ask, who would pay for that?

Well, if payment was going to be made to store carbon underground, presumably the government had a plan in mind as to how that was to be compensated.

 The way I see it, any form of sequestration that prevents carbon emissions from damaging the atmosphere should compensated for.

The payment should be commensurate to the environmental benefit it provides.

In reality it could stay quite low if it was found that CO2 emissions were being contained at acceptable levels.  

However, there should be a mechanism to increase the compensation if it was found that not enough was being done.

As far as I am aware, no one has yet come up with an efonmically effective way to capture and sequester carbon.

This aspect of the Hazer Process should not be understated or undervalued.