## 4 Conclusions
The addition of more regional profiles in West Africa and elsewhere in the world (which would require the acquisition of relevant data) should be considered to reflectthe exact regulatory, technical, and economic parameters of the various regions required for analysis. The addition to the tool of more ANG utilisation such as natural gas to fertiliser, compressed natural gas (CNG), and natural gas to hydrogen utilisation options should be implemented to increase the number of options available for selection. The incorporation of dynamic state simulations that incorporate high levels of detailed modelling, encourage significant reductions in high CAPEX, and provide high levels of process analysis should be investigated for the tool. An investigation into the various impacts of ANG flaring on community health and workplace safety (such as methane explosion, CO poisoning, and so on) should also be considered. Outlook: This paper was originally designed with some technologies (GTW, GTL, and LNG) to end routine gas flaring or venting in the context of Nigerian gas flaring so that different stakeholders can utilise this tool to end these wasteful, polluting industrial practices. This tool can be easily deployed for other emerging technologies such as \"gas to hydrogen\" and \"gas to X\". The business implications of this tool with selected technologies can be utilised from the perspective of other countries. Conceptualisation and methodology, R.A., K.P., N.S. and E.J.A. ; writing--original draft and editing, R.A.; writing--review, K.P., R.A., N.S. and E.J.A. ; supervision, K.P. and N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Cranfield University for supporting [PERSON]'s PhD programme. Not applicable. The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. The authors declare no conflict of interest. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Formula**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Plant Capacity (PC) This is the final output from the simulation} & \%GTM & \(\text{PCGTM}=\text{GTM}_{\text{Final}\_\text{A}}\); \\  & \%GTW & \(\text{PCGTM}=\text{GTW}_{\text{Final}}\)*8760; \\  & \%LNG & \(\text{PCLNG}=\text{LNG}_{\text{Final}}\); \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Raw Material Cost (RMC)} & \%GTW & \(\text{RMC}_{\text{GTW}}\)= \(\text{RMC}_{\text{GTW}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{GTW}}/\text{PC}_{\text{GTW}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \%GTM & \(\text{RMC}_{\text{GTM}}\)= \(\text{RMC}_{\text{GTM}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{GTM}}/\text{PC}_{\text{GTM}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \%LNG & \(\text{RMC}_{\text{LNG}}\)= \(\text{RMC}_{\text{LNG}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{LNG}}/\text{PC}_{\text{LNG}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \(\text{N}/\text{B}\)—GTM\({}^{1}\), GTW\({}^{1}\), and LNG\({}^{1}\) are ANG processes that have established capacities and costs. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Equipment Cost (EC)} & \%GTW & \(\text{EC}_{\text{GTW}}\)= \(\text{EC}_{\text{GTW}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{GTW}}/\text{PC}_{\text{GTW}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \%GTM & \(\text{EC}_{\text{GTM}}\)= \(\text{EC}_{\text{GTM}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{GTM}}/\text{PC}_{\text{GTM}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \%LNG & \(\text{EC}_{\text{LNG}}\)= \(\text{EC}_{\text{LNG}}\)\({}^{1}\times\)\([\text{PC}_{\text{LNG}}/\text{PC}_{\text{LNG}}\)\({}^{1}]^{0.6}\) \\  & \(\text{N}/\text{B}\)—GTM\({}^{1}\), GTW\({}^{1}\), and LNG\({}^{1}\) are ANG processes that have established capacities and costs. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Capital Cost of Transport (CCT)} & For GTM & \(\text{CT}\) Onshore—USD 300,000 \(\times\) Distance (D) (cost per mile of pipeline assuming 12 inch) & \(\text{CCT}\) Offshore—USD 480,000 \(\times\) Distance (D) & \(\text{CCT}\) Offshore \\  & \%CTW & \(\text{CCT}\) Onshore—USD 300,000 \(\times\) Distance (D) & \(\text{CCT}\) Offshore \\  & \%LNG & \(\text{CCT}\) Offshore & \