Their goal as a company isn't energy density or efficiency, it's atmospheric CO2 reduction. Their production of hydrogen displaces CO2 production by other methods, uses plant mass which is sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere, and produces hydrogen fuel that can be burned or consumed in fuel cell vehicles with zero CO2 emissions. Even if it gets sold to an oil refinery in the short term, it'll have offset and sequestered CO2 compared to their previous source of hydrogen. That means the lifecycle CO2 emissions of the cars running off the resulting gasoline will be lower.
Consider the Pepsi challenge between a straight natural gas wellhead and using lawn. The natural gas tap requires no natural-gas derived fertilizer, no grid-derived irrigation, no fuel-based harvest or processing, and doesn't deplete soil of nutrients. It doesn't remove CO2 from the air but it likewise doesn't add CO2 to the air from its use of the aforementioned.
Steam reforming the natural gas and then injecting the CO2 can't be any harder than charring the grass clippings and then injecting the CO2.
At least corn-derived ethanol is a decent motor fuel, for all its limp efficiency numbers and carbon-positive growth cycle. If you're willing to overlook the warts of this hydrogen technology, I don't see why you're not instead advocating for corn-based ethanol.
And if making green industrial hydrogen is your goal, PV-powered electrolyzers can outperform this in process efficiency, complexity, scalability, and deployment cost, all without consuming fertilizer, (as much) water, or depleting soil.
