They can greenwash their natural gas into "green" hydrogen and get even more profits. H2 prices are at least 5-10x compared to natural gas.
Even ignoring climate benefits, it's still worth pumping CO2 down the well for financial reasons alone - especially towards the end of the lifespan of classical oil wells.
So-called "blue" hydrogen only results in about 10% less GHG emissions than traditional "grey" hydrogen. It's something, but not big enough of a difference to actually be usable.
[0]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956
[0]: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-indus...
Blue hydrogen only makes sense with global carbon caps, taxes or quotas. And it only makes sense if CO2 injected underground doesn't count towards that cap/tax/quota.
So far, there is no political appetite for global taxes/caps/quotas, so blue hydrogen is only at pilot-plant scale.
If you can take natural gas out of the ground, split it into hydrogen and CO2 (releasing heat, which can be used to generate electricity), and inject the CO2 back underground to help release more oil and gas.
At this point, you have hydrogen gas.
Sure, you could burn that hydrogen to make more electricity, but it works out financially better if you can directly use it.
The benefit of this approach is it can make use of most of the existing oil and gas infrastructure, and countries sitting on big gas reserves have a use for them.
The downside is it makes minimal sense unless there is some financial disincentive from just burning the gas and releasing the CO2.