# Techno-Economic Analysis of Flare Gas to Hydrogen: A Lean and Green Sustainability Approach
## 3 Results
### Sensitivity Analysis  
A sensitivity analysis was performed on each of the inefficient DMUs to determine the potential increase if the inefficiency measure of each of the DMUs is reduced by 0.1. It was observed that the maximum potential reduction was recorded when the inefficiency measure of the DMUs was decreased to the barest minimum, which were at 0.086, 0.087, 0.032, 0.071, 0.081, 0.062, and 0.076 for DMUs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12, respectively. This is shown in Table 9.  
The graph presented in Figure 7 displays the findings from the sensitivity analysis, which aimed to evaluate the maximum possible reduction in the number of inefficient companies listed in Table 7. It was found that as the inefficiency score decreases, the maximum potential reduction in flare gas increases. Out of the four inefficient DMUs, Y8 Max, demonstrates the most significant potential for reduction, with an inefficiency score of 0.081.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Company** & **Rig Count** & \begin{tabular}{l} **Total Number** \\ **of Wells** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **Crude Oil** \\ **Produced (Barrel)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Gas Flared** \\ **(Mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Inefficiency Score** \\ \(\alpha_{k}^{*}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline (DMU1) & 1 & 2 & 55,951,445 & 5,113,373 & 0.000 & efficient \\ (DMU2) & 4 & 30 & 85,281,652 & 43,869,959 & 0.000 & efficient \\ (DMU3) & 6 & 14 & 29,567,309 & 31,532,670 & 0.868 & inefficient \\ (DMU4) & 8 & 35 & 104,217,351 & 45,6139,44 & 0.000 & efficient \\ (DMU5) & 1 & 13 & 23,829,337 & 30,192,077 & 0.887 & inefficient \\ (DMU6) & 5 & 18 & 19,644,380 & 42,513,538 & 0.932 & inefficient \\ (DMU7) & 1 & 5 & 80,229,04 & 49,187,70 & 0.771 & inefficient \\ (DMU8) & 1 & 6 & 50,947,329 & 4,588,362 & 0.881 & efficient \\ (DMU9) & 1 & 4 & 84,871,128 & 6,367,978 & 0.000 & efficient \\ (DMU10) & 1 & 13 & 1,804,542 & 2,324,147 & 0.862 & inefficient \\ (DMU11) & 1 & 2 & 2,909,852 & 287,827 & 0.000 & efficient \\ (DMU12) & 1 & 5 & 39,214,610 & 8,335,000 & 0.476 & inefficient \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Production data used for each of the DMUs and their efficiency scores.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Y3 Max** & \(\alpha_{3}^{*}\) & \begin{tabular}{l} **Y5 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{5}^{*}\) & \begin{tabular}{l} **Y6 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{6}^{*}\) & \begin{tabular}{l} **Y7 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{7}^{*}\) & \begin{tabular}{l} **Y8 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{8}^{*}\) & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Y10 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{10}^{*}\) &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Y12 Max** \\ **(mscf)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\alpha_{12}^{*}\) \\ \hline
93,281.87 & 0.868 & 35,579.28 & 0.887 & 51,242.28 & 0.932 & 1731.957 & 0.771 & 89,441,660.881 & 6637.400 & 0.862 & 3423.592 & 0.476 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Potential Maximum Reduction using the sensitivity analysis.