The Economic Evaluation of Methanol and Propylene Production from Natural Gas at Petrochemical Industries in Iran

sustainability

Article The Economic Evaluation of Methanol and Propylene Production from Natural Gas at Petrochemical Industries in Iran

Rahmad Syah 1 , Afshin Davarpanah 1 , Marischa Elveny 2,* , Amir Ghasemi 3 and Dadan Ramdan 1

1 Data Science & Computational Intelligence Research Group, Universitas Medan Area, Medan 20223, Indonesia; [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (A.D.); [email protected] (D.R.) 2 Data Science & Computational Intelligence Research Group, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan 20155, Indonesia 3 School of Engineering, College of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran 14179-35840, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This investigation scrutinizes the economic features and potential of propylene and methanol production from natural gas in Iran because greenhouse gas emissions released by natural gas-based production processes are lower than coal-based ones. Considering the advantage of Iran’s access to natural gas, this study evaluates and compares the economic value of different plans to complete the value chain of propylene production from natural gas and methanol in the form of four units based on three price scenarios, namely, optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic, using the COMFAR III software. Iran has been ranked as the second most prosperous country globally based

on its natural gas reserves. Methanol and propylene production processes via natural gas will lower the release of greenhouse gas. This, increasing the investment and accelerating the development

Citation: Syah, R.; Davarpanah, A.; of methanol and propylene production units driven by natural gas will lead the world to a low Elveny, M.; Ghasemi, A.; Ramdan, D. emission future compared to coal-based plants. The economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis The Economic Evaluation of results revealed that the conversion of methanol to propylene is more attractive for investment than Methanol and Propylene Production the sale of crude methanol. The development of methanol to propylene units is more economical from Natural Gas at Petrochemical than constructing a new gas to propylene unit because of the lower investment costs. Industries in Iran. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: economic evaluation; propylene; COMFAR III methanol; natural gas su13179990

Academic Editor: Sohbet Karbuz 1. Introduction Received: 30 July 2021 Natural gas consists mainly of methane (80 to 95% by volume) and other light alka- Accepted: 30 August 2021 Published: 6 September 2021 nes, commonly utilized for industrial electricity/heating load generation. Based on the anticipated data, the remaining reserve gas is about 6.879 trillion cubic feet [1–10]. It is

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral projected that the demand for natural gas will increase to 203 trillion cubic feet in 2040 [2–6]. with regard to jurisdictional claims in To synthesize relatively pure methane (93 vol %), natural gas is first dewatered before published maps and institutional affil- distribution through pipelines, and after that it is devoid of carbon dioxide, hydrogen iations. sulfide, and higher alkanes [11–20]. Moreover, based on the report published in a statistical review of world energy markets [21–30], Iran has 17.3% of the world’s whole natural gas reserves and has been ranked as the second richest country in this regard [4]. So, it can be considered a promising region to investigate and develop propylene and methanol production plants [31–40]. From tech- Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. nical viewpoint, a significant chunk of natural gas includes methane and other components This article is an open access article of natural gas; for instance, ethane can be produced through steam cracking [41–50]. In distributed under the terms and addition, other natural gas components such as propane and butane can be used to produce conditions of the Creative Commons propylene and butadiene, respectively [51–60]. These olefins are the building blocks of Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// many chemicals, namely, resins, plastics, and adhesives [61–63]. Reportedly, ethylene creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ generation in 2015 was around 150 million tons, and it is projected that the worldwide 4.0/). demand for olefin will increase steadily at a rate of 1.5–4.1% per year [62].

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179990 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 2 of 23

In contrast to olefin production from light naphtha cracking, olefins can also be produced from natural gas condensates. This is the least expensive method of producing olefins in the United States. It must be mentioned that among all the available production processes considered for methanol and propylene generation, utilizing natural gas as a feed is the more environmentally friendly process as it generates lower carbon dioxide [10]. Based on the comprehensive study in [63], the amount of carbon dioxide released by natural gas-based plants is lower than coal-based plants. Developing natural gas-based plants to generate propylene and methanol will lead the world to less greenhouse gas emissions [12–16]. Propylene or propane is considered a critical monomer and raw material in petrochemical plants and primary light olefins. It is an unsaturated organic compound and is broadly used to develop alkylation, polymerization, and octane reactions. In the modern petrochemical industry, propylene is considered a critical material that plays a pivotal role in generating strategic goods such as polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile, acrolein, and acrylic acid [64]. Propylene is known widely as a used by-product (indirect methods) in FCC units of oil refineries as well as in ethylene production units via naphtha vapor cracking [65,66]. Because of its quality and purity, propylene is usually produced and supplied in three grades: polymer grade (PG) with a purity of 99.5%, chemical grade (CG) with a purity of 90–96%, and refinery grade (RG) with a purity of 50–70%. SINOPEC produced 6% of the total global propylene production in 2018 alone (Figure1)[67].

Figure 1. Share of signiﬁcant propylene producers in 2018 (Advanced Value Chain Development Center, 2020).

Recent advances in the production of propylene derivatives, especially polypropylene (about a 60% share of propylene production), have led to an increase in global propylene demand of 5–6% per year [64,68]. In 2018, the total global capacity of propylene was more than 129 million tons, which increased by about 24% since 2013; it is expected to reach more than 161 million tons in 2022. In 2018, the total global supply of this product was about 112 million tons, which increased by 27% since 2013 (Figure2) and is projected to reach 131 million tons in 2022 [67]. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 3 of 23

Figure 2. Global production of propylene in 2019 [20].

Based on the increment in propylene consumption and the decrement of oil resources in the future, the petrochemical industry will encounter a propylene supply crisis [69]. Therefore, these factors have inspired new processes to produce propylene on a large scale with high efficiency. One of these new methods is the methanol to propylene (MTP) process. On an industrial scale, methanol can be produced from oil (natural gas), non-oil (coal), and non-conventional (shale gas) resources [70–72]. In addition to the MTP process, propylene can also be produced from the methanol to olefin (MTO) process, which is a prominent alternative method for the production of propylene from non-oil sources on a large scale [66,70,71]. For the first time globally, the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, introduced dimethyl ether or methanol to olefin using coal feed [73]. UOP/Hydro has commercialized MTO technology to produce ethylene and propylene, based on a SAPO-34 catalyst in a fluidized bed reactor. However, the MTP process was designed by Lurgi to produce propylene based on a ZSM-5 catalyst in a fixed bed reactor [74–76]. Therefore, the MTP process can be considered the most desirable method to reduce the growing gap between propylene supply and demand [77]. In the MTO process, methanol is first hydrated to form dimethyl ether, an equilibrium mixture of methanol, dimethyl ether, and water. The equilibrium mixture is then turned into lighter olefins [68,78]. Instead, propylene is the main product in Lurgi’s MTP process, and ethylene, gasoline, gasoline hydrocarbons, and LNG can also be produced as byproducts, depending on the reaction conditions and operating conditions parameters used [79]. Other alternative methods for propylene production include isobutyl alcohol to propylene [80], acetic acid hydrogenation [81], olefin metathesis [82], and propane dehydrogenation [83–85]. Figure3 shows the direct and indirect methods of propylene production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 4 of 23

Figure 3. Types of propylene production methods (a) and propylene utilization (b).

The study and analysis of the value chain of propylene indicate that because of the significant growth in world consumption of this material, traditional methods (low efficiency) alone will not be able to meet the demand. The most significant motives for the advent of purpose-on avenues in the production of propylene are the following: • A substantial supply of light feeds such as methane, ethane, propane, and butane in various parts of the world, including the Middle East and the United States; • Reduction in the efficiency of propylene production in steam crackers owing to the use of light feed (ethane and liquefied petroleum gas); • The need to increase the competitiveness of petrochemical complexes in the production of various products; • The presence of significant natural gas reserves in Iran, maximum commissioning of coal in China, and the use of shale gas in the United States. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 5 of 23

Because of the high cost of propylene transportation, it is not economical to import. On the other hand, propylene, as a base product in the petrochemical industry, is of particular importance because it provides valuable downstream products such as polypropylene. Polypropylene is the main feed of textile, plastic, cosmetics, and automotive industries. Iran’s propylene production capacity in 2018 was about 1.163 million tons [31], and Iran’s imports of certain downstream products of the propylene value chain in 2017 amounted to approximately USD 516 million [86]. As a result, the construction of propylene production units in Iran will increase employment, reduce imports, and generate wealth. Because of Iran’s advantage in having access to natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), the required propylene for the country can directly be produced. In recent years in Iran, attention has been paid to converting natural gas to propylene (GTP), because of the low natural gas feed costs. As the result of international environmental contracts that emphasize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the importance of this matter in the petrochemical industries, which clearly contribute to releasing greenhouse gas emission, finding new methods to produce cleaner goods is vital [87]. To calculate the amount of released carbon dioxide in the petrochemical processes, the emission sources were classified into three different groups: • The direct source of emissions (process-based emission), • The indirect source of emissions (utilizing the power in the process), • The direct source of emissions from lateral services (steam and furnaces). The direct and indirect emissions in the propylene production process from coal are around 12.25 tons CO2 per ton of generated propylene. In contrast, this indicator in the Lurgi process is around 1.3 tons CO2 per ton of generated material. Moreover, based on reports in previously published articles, the water usage in the coal-based process is around 39.65 tons per ton of generated propylene, while in the Lurgi process, this factor is around 10.75 tons per ton generated propylene [88,89]. In each corner of the world, because of accessibility to resources and other production parameters, experts and scholars have classified and prioritized the production of chemical- based materials such as propylene. China has utilized coal to generate propylene on a large scale, while the USA has recently focused on producing propylene from propane [90]. Unfortunately, there has been no systematic/research-based investigation of the Iran case, and the lack of reliable information by which to develop a natural gas-based plant is obvious. To this end, this article evaluates an economical way to generate sustainable propylene. Because of its considerable gas resources, along with the proper location, the appropriate scale capacity, and of course the gas feed discount support, the process of producing propylene from natural gas and methanol is a very suitable option for Iran. In Iran, there are few propylene production units. The approach of decision makers and the petrochemical industry is more focused on selling crude methanol from natural gas than on converting natural gas and propylene methanol, which is petrochemical caviar, so this study is a novel investigation, focusing on calculations and analysis of economic sensitivity. It aims to direct the view of decision makers and policy makers in the Iranian petrochemical industry to the production of propylene and methanol from natural gas. It must be mentioned that based on environmental and economic points of view, synthesizing propylene and methanol from natural gas instead of coal can provide more green and sustainable products. In addition, Iran is the best place for installing this kind of plant, and our work, for the first time, evaluates Iran’s potential in this regard. This study evaluates and compares the economics of different propylene and polypropylene production value chain projects from natural gas and methanol. To this end, primarily, the investment cost and profitability of completing the value chain of propylene from natural gas in the form of development of methanol (Unit 4) as well as the construction of new units (Unit 3) based on three price scenarios: optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic, is calculated. After that, the sensitivity analysis of the mentioned units is performed based on economic indicators such as the internal rate of return (IRR), payback period, the total Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 6 of 23

cost of feed consumption, and total net sales using COMFAR III software. Finally, the best solution for the production of propylene and polypropylene is selected.

2. Description of the Processes Because of the advantage of Iran’s access to natural gas and liqueﬁed petroleum gas (LPG), the required propylene can be produced directly. In recent years in Iran, natural gas to propylene (GTP) and polypropylene conversion unit has drawn attention, considering the low cost of natural gas feed. In order to evaluate this subject meticulously, in the initial part of this study different production processes of propylene are described. The second part delineates the method and economic evaluation of the different production processes of propylene and polypropylene from natural gas and methanol.

2.1. Description of Lurgi GTM Process A typical process for methanol production includes natural gas desulfurization, steam reforming, methanol synthesis, and methanol reﬁning.

2.1.1. Syngas Generation The generation of synthetic gas is commonly achieved by the steam reforming of natural gas as follows: CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2. (1) Steam reforming involves methane reactions and water–gas shifts (Equations (1) and (2)) that are performed simultaneously. In order to avoid the formation of coke (3) on the surface of the catalyst and boost hydrogen generation by the water–gas shift relationship, a sizable steam-to-carbon ratio is required [86].

CO + H2O CO2 + H2, (2)

2CO (g) → CO2 (g) + C(s). (3) The SRM procedure includes two main sections. The ﬁrst part comprises a packed catalyst in the pipes and a furnace for heating the reforming pipes. The syngas molar ratio for the synthesis of methanol is 2.1, according to the following relationship:

(H − CO ) SR = 2 2 . (4) (CO + CO2)

Figure4 demonstrates that the generated synthesis gas in the reforming passes through a heat exchanger and produces medium pressure steam. The syngas cools and then enters the heat recovery system for further cooling to medium temperature. The steam and the syngas are condensed and used as boiler feed water. Finally, the dry syngas is compressed to 50 to 100 atm pressure and then heated to a temperature range of 250–200 ◦C. Thus, the synthesis gas is prepared for methanol synthesis reactions.

2.1.2. Methanol Generation A methanol generation section is typically licensed from various process and catalyst suppliers. Each licensor has created its schematic diagram and catalytic framework. The heart of the ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) low-pressure methanol process is a quench converter charged with an active catalyst (Cu-ZnO/Al2O3) and operating under a pressure of 10 MPa at a temperature range of 200 to 300 ◦C. ICI’s low-pressure methanol process with the quench reactor system is widely used, and many methanol industries still employ this framework [91]. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 7 of 23

Figure 4. Schematic of the methanol generation loop via natural gas reforming.

This converter includes several adiabatic substrates connected in series; the addition- ally cooled syngas cools the generation reaction among the substrates. Johnson Matthey Catalyst (ofﬁcially ICI) collaborated with Methanol Casale to introduce an innovative converter with the same cooling concept and the axial radial converter (ARC). The ARC is a cooling that improves gas distribution but has a separate catalyst bed rather than a continuous bed. The methanol reactions in the low-pressure synthesis ring are given by:

CO + 2H2 CH3OH, (5)

CO2 + 3H2 CH3OH + H2O, (6)

CO2 + H2 CO + H2O. (7)

2.1.3. Methanol Refining The crude methanol obtained from methanol synthesis is refined using distillation columns. According to the U.S. Federal Grading System, there are two grades for methanol: grade AA and grade A. The difference between these grades is the amount of water in them. The minimum weight of methanol in both grades is 99.85%, while the maximum weights of water grade AA and grade A are 0.1 and 0.15%, respectively. Typically, three and two distillation columns are required to produce grade AA and A methanol, respectively. A heat exchanger cools the reactor wastewater with fresh syngas and boiler feed water. The unreacted syngas is then separated from the methanol by a pressure vessel. The unreacted syngas is recycled to the converter by a rotary compressor. In order to maintain the minimum level of impurities and hydrogen in the ring, a small purge of unreacted materials from the recycled gas is performed and utilized as a fuel in the reforming procedure. The condensed materials containing water and methanol are transferred to the crude methanol storage tank. They are then subjected to a pressure higher than atmospheric to separate dissolved gases. The crude methanol is then transferred to a distillation column system, which typically consists of two columns. The first column operates under high pressure, whereby impurities such as syngas and hydrocarbons are removed from the methanol/water mixture. Then, the water is separated from methanol under atmospheric pressure. Crude methanol is then pumped from the storage tank into an Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 8 of 23

upper column to remove light impurities such as methyl-formate from the upper column stream. The pressure of this column is slightly higher than the atmospheric pressure [92]. The downstream stream of the upper column enters a reﬁning column, where the puriﬁed methanol is separated from above the column as a distilled product. Sewage is also discharged from the lower part of this column.

2.2. Description of Lurgi MTP Process Methanol is converted to propylene employing the MTP process developed by Lurgi (Figure5). The crude methanol must be purified before the catalytic reaction of conversion to propylene. Thus, unlike the MTO process, an additional distillation tower is added to the MTP process. After purification, methanol is conveyed to the first reactor (DME reactor), where it is converted to DME and water [93]. This stream is then directed toward the reaction section, where the olefin reaction occurs on a zeolite-based catalyst (ZSM-5) in a fixed bed reactor. Five or six catalyst beds are employed to uphold the process conditions [79]. To recycle the catalyst, the reaction zone is configured in parallel, consisting of three reactors. In one of the reactors, standby mode, the formed coke is eradicated by the air entering the reactor. The output stream from the reactors is guided to the separation section, whereby water is retrieved and directed to the reaction section for reuse. The output stream is ventilated from the separator, steered to the fractionation unit, and converted to products such as propylene, gasoline, LPG, and fuel gas. To improve the performance of propylene, a stream of boiling hydrocarbons (olefin) is sent from the conversion section to the reaction section.

Figure 5. Methanol to propylene conversion process based on Lurgi technology.

In the process of converting methanol to propylene through the Lurgi technology, for 3.46 tons of input methanol feed, 1 ton of propylene, 0.048 ton of ethylene, 0.377 ton of gasoline, and 0.0377 ton of LPG are produced. An MTP unit with a capacity of 452,000 tons per year requires 1566 tons of methanol. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 9 of 23

3. Material and Methods 3.1. Economic Evaluation The economic evaluation of the processes was based on the total annual cost, commonly used in the conceptual design of chemical processes [94,95]. Foremost, the investment cost and economic profitability of completing the value chain of propylene from natural gas in the form of the development of the methanol unit (Unit 4) and the construction of the new unit (Unit 3) were computed established on three price scenarios: optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic. COMFAR III software was used to calculate the internal rate of return (IRR), investment payback, the total cost of consumed feed, and total net sales. The word COMFAR stands for Computer Model for Feasibility Analysis and Reporting; it is one of the most reputable analytical software programs in the technical, economic, and financial fields and was developed by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in 1979 (UNIDO) for the preparation and evaluation of economic plans for developing countries, such as Iran. Through analyzing the inputs of the system, the COMFAR software provided output such as: • Estimation of fixed and working investment, • Annual production cost, • Estimation of annual depreciation, • Determination of profits and losses of project, • Calculation of final price with net cash and discount flows of the total investment, • Internal rate of return (IRR), • Determination of net present value, • Determination of rate and period of investment payback, and • Sensitivity analysis and break-even analysis. Input data for calculations such as current unit costs and unit fixed investment costs were gathered from IHS PEP reports [96,97]. After that, sensitivity analysis based on economic indicators such as internal rate of return (IRR) and investment payback, the total cost of feed consumed, and total net sales for four units, namely, natural gas to methanol (GTM) without feed discount (Unit 1), natural gas to methanol (GTM) with 30% feed discount (Unit 2), GTP (Unit 3), MTP (Unit 4), was calculated by COMFAR software. The hypotheses used for economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis were as follows.

3.2. Assumptions The assumptions that underlay the calculations in this report are as follows: • The construction period of a petrochemical unit is two years and the first year of operation of the units is 2023. • Annual inflation is estimated at 2% (based on the dollar). • The minimum return on investment (MIRR) is 18% [98]. • Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method, and the residual value of the equipment is considered 10%. • The price of natural gas feed in Iran for methanol production is about 10 cents per cubic meter, and if the chain continues from methanol to propylene and subsequent chains, a maximum 30% discount is assumed (about 7 cents per cubic meter) [99]. • Oil price fluctuations have a relatively direct effect on methanol prices. In recent years, methanol price variations have had a similar pattern to oil price changes in the same period (for instance, West Texas Intermediate crude oil). • On the other hand, world methanol production capacity will increase by about 23% (especially with the arrival of shale gas in the United States as feed) by 2022, which can also affect the price of methanol [100]. Therefore, considering the direct effect of the methanol price on stopping or developing the production chain of propylene, the economic evaluation of the mentioned processes is established on three methanol price scenarios: optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic; the selling prices of methanol Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 10 of 23

are estimated at USD 239.2, USD 239, and USD 118.8 per ton for the three scenarios, respectively. • Sales prices of propylene are estimated at USD 1097, USD 1097, and USD 821 per ton for the mentioned scenarios [101]. • Byproducts such as ethylene, gasoline, and LPG are also produced while converting methanol to propylene. These three byproducts are also considered in the form of three scenarios. The projected price for ethylene sales in 2023 is USD 1069 per ton based on optimistic scenarios, USD 800 per ton in realistic scenarios [101], and USD 531 per ton in pessimistic scenarios. On the other hand, the anticipated price for the sale of LPG according to the optimistic scenarios is USD 525.12 per ton, USD 393 per ton in realistic scenarios [101], and USD 260.87 per ton in the pessimistic scenarios. Finally, the forecast price for gasoline sales in 2023 is USD 923.3 [101], USD 691, and USD 465.68 per ton in the scenarios, respectively. On average, direct consumables accounted for more than 84.56% of the cost of Iranian petrochemical complexes located in the South Pars region (average weighted cost of petrochemical complex products). The shares of costs such as utility (water, electricity, and fuel), direct wages, depreciation, and other costs are displayed in Figure6[102].

Figure 6. Shares of different costs from the cost of products in Iranian petrochemical complexes [43].

4. Results of Economic Evaluations Investment cost and economic proﬁtability to complete the value chain of the propylene from natural gas in the form of development of methanol units (Unit 4) and construction of new unit (Unit 3) based on three price scenarios (optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic) were calculated. The results of this appraisal are charted in Tables1–4. Sensi- tivity analysis was based on economic indicators such as internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period for six units, namely, the GTM unit without feed discount (Unit 1), GTM unit with 30% feed discount (Unit 2), GTP unit (Unit 3), MTP unit (Unit 4) was performed by COMFAR software.

4.1. Assessment of Economic Productivity 4.1.1. Investment Prices The sum of the ﬁxed capital investment (FCI) and working capital investment (WCI) is called total capital investment (TCI). This parameter determines the production and the plant facilities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 11 of 23

4.1.2. Production Prices To evaluate the OTEG production procedure’s commercial feasibility, the total production cost (TPC) assessment is needed. This parameter considers the operation prices and general costs extracted from the following relation [103]:

TCI = CR + CU + CL + CFO + CDE. (8)

CR,CU,CL,CFO, and CDE are the raw material’s price, utilities, labor, factory overhead, and depreciation, respectively.

4.1.3. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) This factor is utilized to have a more reliable and accurate assessment of the return for an economic plan [104]. This factor considers the discount rate (i) producing the plan’s future ﬁnancial ﬂows equal to its initial cash outlay [105]. From the following relationship, the mentioned parameter is the discount rate that will provide the net present value (PV) of the investment’s gains stream total to zero [106].

N −t ∑(CI − CO)t(1 + IRR) = 0. (9) t=0

IRR is the internal rate of return, CI is the money inflow of year t, CO refers to the money outflow of year t, and N denotes the lifelong plan (20 years). The time value of money and all prices and revenues for the period of the plant is taken into account for the IRR determination process [107–111]. In the first step, and to measure the feasibility of the economic plan, the introductory discount rate (i0) should be considered. From an economic point of view, when the determined IRR is higher than the introductory discount rate, the project is feasible. Otherwise, the economic plan will not satisfy the economic feasibility feature.

4.1.4. Natural Gas to Methanol Conversion Unit (GTM) without Feed Discount (Unit 1) Table1 presents the economic information for the natural gas to methanol conversion unit (GTM). The fixed investment cost to set up this unit is USD 733 million. If the produced methanol is not used as feed for the propylene unit, the gas price per cubic meter is 10 cents (without feed discount). In the short and medium-term, various factors will, directly and indirectly, affect the global methanol market, including: • The decline in oil and gas prices and their effects on feed and fuel prices. • US–China trade war and decreasing Chinese methanol imports from the US. • Drop-in methanol price (leading to eliminating players who have had low-profit margins so far). • Increase in the level of methanol production, especially in Iran. • Expansion of methanol and its derivatives in China as fuel to 85 million liters/day over the next five years (85 million liters is equivalent to 24 million tons of methanol/year). • Reducing global demand for methanol derivatives, especially formaldehyde, in the European automotive industry. • Shipping price changes from the implementation of new IMO 2020 pollution regulations. • Expansion of methanol consumption as a ship fuel due to the new IMO 2020 pollution regulations. With the arrival of each new competitor in the market, the position of other competitors is affected, especially if the new competitor is eager to disrupt the market price and increase its share [112–122]. Following the methanol cost curve, if the price of this material decreases in the market, first, the gas units of China, Europe, India, and South America (except Venezuela) will be eliminated from the competition; other competitors that use coal as feed Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 12 of 23

in China, Iran, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, North America, Trinidad, Africa, the Middle East, and Venezuela will last longer. With 10.6 million tons of methanol production capacity, Iran should have a unique planning strategy for the global and regional methanol market. By 2024, with the entry of new projects into production, Iran’s methanol production capacity will reach more than 23 million tons. Since the domestic market capacity of methanol will not grow much in the coming years, it seems that all-new Iranian methanol products should be exported to global markets. Iran’s methanol supply will increase by 15 million tons over the next ﬁve years, while total world demand will experience the same growth. If Iran upholds its 12% share of the world methanol trade market, it can export a maximum of 2 million tons of its new products, and another 13 million tons will be left without customers. In order for Iran to be able to trade all its new methanol in the consumer market within the next ﬁve years, it must increase its share from 12 to 23%, which is twofold, and this will not be achieved except by price cuts and the struggle against US sanctions. It is important to note that the development of intermediate and complementary industries for production in the country can reduce the import of these products and form a steady demand for “methanol-based products” for methanol-producing units. Therefore, the government’s attention to the development of intermediate industries in the private sector will be necessary for the advancement of methanol in the future of Iran.

Table 1. Economic information of the natural gas to methanol conversion unit in Iran (without discount on feed prices).

Item Pessimistic Scenario Realistic Scenario Optimistic Scenario Methanol production capacity (thousand tons per 1566 1566 1566 year) Fixed investment cost (million dollars) [98,99] 733 733 733 Amount of natural gas consumed (billion cubic 1.356 1.356 1.356 meters) [104] Unit price of natural gas consumed (cents per cubic 10 10 10 meter) [101] Total cost of feed (million dollars) 135.6 135.6 135.6 Labor (million dollars) [104] 1.170 1.170 1.170 Utility (million dollars) [104] 9.509 9.509 9.509 Depreciation (million dollars) [104] 3.143 3.143 3.143 Factory overhead costs (million dollars) [104] 10.840 10.840 10.840 Total production cost (million dollars) [104] 160.359 160.359 160.359 Cost of methanol production (dollars per ton) 102.4 102.4 102.4 Estimated selling price of methanol in 2023 (dollars 118.8 179 [104] 239.2 per ton) Total gross sales (million dollars) 186.07 280.31 374.58 Total net sales (million dollars) 25.711 119.95 214.22 Tax (million dollars) 2.314 10.79 19.28 Total net sales after tax (million dollars) 23.397 109.15 194.94 IRR (%) 3.192 14.89 26.59 Return on investment (year) 31.3 6.71 3.76

4.1.5. Natural Gas to Methanol Conversion Unit (GTM) with 30% Feed Discount (Unit 2) Table2 shows the ﬁnancial information for the natural gas to methanol conversion unit. The ﬁxed investment cost to set up a GTM unit is USD 733 million. In this unit, the produced methanol is used as feed; as a result, according to the laws of Iran’s Ministry of Oil, each cubic meter of natural gas is sold to petrochemical complexes with a 30% discount, at 7 cents. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 13 of 23

Table 2. Economic information for the natural gas to methanol conversion unit in Iran.

Item Pessimistic Scenario Realistic Scenario Optimistic Scenario Methanol production capacity (thousand tons per 1566 1566 1566 year) Fixed investment cost (million dollars) [98,99] 733 733 733 Amount of natural gas consumed (billion cubic 1.356 1.356 1.356 meters) [104] Unit price of natural gas consumed (cents per cubic 7 7 7 meter) [101] Total cost of feed (million dollars) 94.94 94.94 94.94 Direct wages (million dollars) 0.819 0.819 0.819 Utility (million dollars) [104] 6.658 6.658 6.658 Depreciation (million dollars) [104] 2.208 2.208 2.208 Other costs (million dollars) [104] 7.598 7.598 7.598 Total production cost (million dollars) [104] 112.27 112.27 112.27 Cost of methanol production (dollars per ton) 71.70 71.70 71.70 Estimated selling price of methanol in 2023 (dollars 118.8 179 [104] 239.2 per ton) Total gross sales (million dollars) 186.07 280.31 374.58 Total net sales (million dollars) 73.8 168.04 262.31 Tax (million dollars) 6.642 15.12 23.61 Total net sales after tax (million dollars) 67.158 152.92 238.70 IRR (%) 9.162 20.86 32.56 Return on investment (year) 10.9 4.79 3.07

4.1.6. Natural Gas to Propylene Conversion Unit (Unit 3) Because of the low price of natural gas in Iran, a suitable solution for propylene production is methanol generation from natural gas and its conversion to propylene, LPG, gasoline, and ethylene. To produce 452,000 tons of propylene per year, 1.356 billion cubic meters of natural gas are needed [102]. Table3 displays the economic information for the natural gas to propylene conversion unit. The ﬁxed investment cost to set up a GTP unit is USD 1014 million. In this unit, natural gas is used as feed, so according to the previously mentioned laws, it beneﬁts from a 30% discount on natural gas. In addition to propylene, other valuable byproducts such as ethylene, LPG, and gasoline are also produced in this unit.

4.1.7. Methanol to Propylene Conversion Unit (Unit 4) In this unit, methanol is utilized as feed; the investment cost to convert GTM to MTP is USD 281 million. In addition to propylene, the MTP unit also produces other valuable byproducts such as ethylene, LPG, and gasoline, and the economic information is given in Table4.

4.2. Comparison of the Economic Results of Propylene with That of Other Researchers In this section, the costs of fixed investment and production of propylene in Iran using Lurgi technology (economic results of propylene) are compared with the mentioned costs of propylene from various processes. As shown in Table5, Lurgi technology’s fixed investment costs of constructing a propylene unit in Iran are 9% lower, compared to the same process and the lowest fixed investment costs of RGP Splitter and CB&I OCT technologies. The cost of producing propylene in Iran by Lurgi technology is lower than all other processes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 14 of 23

Table 3. Economic information for the natural gas to propylene conversion unit in Iran.

Item Pessimistic Scenario Realistic Scenario Optimistic Scenario Propylene production capacity (thousand tons per 452 452 452 year) [104] Ethylene production capacity (thousand tons per 21.725 21.725 21.725 year) [104] LPG production capacity (thousand tons per year) 16.746 16.746 16.746 [104] Gasoline production capacity (thousand tons per 170.63 170.63 170.63 year) [104] Fixed investment cost (million dollars) [40,41] 1014 1014 1014 Amount of natural gas consumed (billion cubic 1.356 1.356 1.356 meter) [104] Unit price of natural gas consumed (cents per cubic 7 7 7 meter) [101] Amount of methanol consumed (one thousand tons 1566 1566 1566 per year) Unit price of methanol consumed (dollars per ton) 71.70 71.70 71.70 [104] Total cost of feed (million dollars) 207.21 207.21 207.21 Direct wages (million dollars) [104] 1.789 1.789 1.789 Utility (million dollars) [104] 14.53 14.53 14.53 Depreciation (million dollars) [104] 4.803 4.803 4.803 Other costs (million dollars) [104] 16.56 16.56 16.56 Total production cost (million dollars) 245.04 245.04 245.04 Unit production cost (dollars per ton) 370 370 370 Cost of production of propylene (dollars per ton) 253 253 253 Estimated selling price of propylene in 2023 (dollars 545 821 [103] 1097 per ton) Estimated selling price of ethylene in 2023 (dollars 531 800 [103] 1069 per ton) Estimated selling price of LPG in 2023 (dollars per 260.87 393 [103] 525.12 ton) Estimated selling price of gasoline in 2023 (dollars 465.68 691 [103] 923.3 per ton) Total gross sales (million dollars) 341.70 512.96 685.40 Total net sales (million dollars) 96.663 267.92 440.36 Tax (million dollars) 8.700 24.12 39.63 Total net sales after tax (million dollars) 87.963 243.81 400.72 IRR (%) 8.67 24.04 39.52 Return on investment (year) 11.52 4.30 2.53

Table 4. Economic information for the methanol to propylene conversion unit in Iran.

Table 4. Cont.

Item Pessimistic Scenario Realistic Scenario Optimistic Scenario Direct wages (million dollars) [104] 0.969 0.969 0.969 Utility (million dollars) [104] 7.873 7.873 7.873 Depreciation (million dollars) [104] 2.602 2.602 2.602 Other costs (million dollars) [104] 8.975 8.975 8.975 Total production cost (million dollars) 132.77 132.77 132.77 Unit production cost (dollars per ton) 200.86 200.86 200.86 Cost of production of propylene (dollars per ton) 137.35 137.35 137.35 Estimated selling price of propylene in 2023 (dollars 545 821 [103] 1097 per ton) Estimated selling price of ethylene in 2023 (dollars 531 800 [103] 1069 per ton) Estimated selling price of LPG in 2023 (dollars per 260.87 393 [103] 525.12 ton) Estimated selling price of gasoline in 2023 (dollars 465.68 691 [103] 923.3 per ton) Total gross sales (million dollars) 341.70 512.96 685.40 Total net sales (million dollars) 208.93 380.19 525.63 Tax (million dollars) 18.80 34.22 47.31 Total net sales after tax (million dollars) 190.13 345.97 478.32 IRR (%) 67.66 123.12 170.22 Return on investment (year) 1.478 0.8122 0.5874

Table 5. Comparison of ﬁxed investment costs and propylene production of different processes [48].

Item TCF (Million Dollars) Production Cost (USD/to) This research 281 137.35 Steam cracking 2197 896.3 RGP splitter 89 611.3 CB&I CATOFIN PDH 492 468.5 UOP Oleﬂex PDH 506 475.9 Uhde STAR PDH 525 531.1 Siemens CTP 3171 1398.2 Lurgi MTP 308 668.9 JGC/MCC DTP 316 693.7 CB&I OCT 161 812.8 Lurgi MTP-NG 1660.8

4.3. Economic Sensitivity Analysis 4.3.1. Investigating the Effect of Natural Gas Price on the Profitability of Methanol Production Units (Units 1 and 2) The results of the economic study of Units 1 and 2 (Figure7) illustrated that in the pessimistic price scenario, because of high investment volume and low profitability, neither Unit 1 (methanolization without feed discount) nor Unit 2 (methanolization with 30% feed discount) had the necessary attractiveness for investment. However, in both optimistic and realistic price scenarios, Unit 2 had decent investment desirability compared to Unit 1 because of the expediency of Unit 2’s 30% discount option for natural gas feed, which reduced the total consumed feed cost by USD 40.6 million. Therefore, compared to Unit 1, a 5.97% increase in Unit 2’s internal rate of return was observed in the optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic scenarios. On the other hand, if the selling price of methanol drops below USD 160, then Unit 1 (GTM unit without feed discount) will not have the investment justification because of an internal rate of return of 11.2% (the minimum economic justification for a project in Iran is an internal rate of return above 15%). Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 16 of 23

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis of the impact of natural gas prices on economic indicators of Units 1 and 2. 4.3.2. Inspecting the Effect of Natural Gas Prices on the Proﬁtability of GTM and GTP Units The results of the economic study of natural gas to propylene (GTP) and natural gas to methanol (GTM) units indicated that in the pessimistic price scenario, owing to high investment volume and low proﬁtability, neither the GTP nor the GTM unit (methanolization without feed discounts) had the required investment desirability, observable in Figure8.

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis of the impact of natural gas prices on economic indicators of Units 1 and 3.

Nevertheless, in both optimistic and realistic price scenarios, the GTP unit had signiﬁ- cant investment desirability compared to the GTM (discount feed methanolization) unit, Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 17 of 23

caused by factors such as the price of propylene being fourfold higher than methanol in the world market, the existence of valuable byproducts (ethylene, LPG, and gasoline), and also the beneﬁt from a 30% discount (GTP unit) on natural gas feed. These factors led to a signiﬁcant increase in the GTP unit’s total net sales (sales after tax). As a result of this increase, the internal rate of return of Unit 3 in the three scenarios, compared to Unit 1, increased by 12.93, 9.15, and 5.48%, respectively.

4.3.3. Examining the Effect of Feed Price on the Proﬁtability of GTM and MTP Units The results of the economic study of MTP units (development of GTM unit) and GTM (construction of new GTM unit) attested that in all price scenarios, the MTP unit, compared to GTM unit (sale of crude methanol in Iran’s domestic and foreign markets), was an attractive investment, showcased in Figure9.

Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis of the impact of feed prices on economic indicators of Units 1 and 4.

The attractiveness of the MTP unit investment was similar to the previous section (3.3.2). Similarly, these factors caused a signiﬁcant increase in total net sales (sales after tax) of the MTP unit; as a result, the internal rate of return of Unit 4 in the three scenarios, compared to Unit 1, increased by 143.63, 108.23, and 64.47%, respectively.

5. Conclusions This investigation scrutinized the economic features and potential of propylene and methanol production from natural gas in Iran. Because of the lower greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas-based production processes than those of coal-based ones, the introduced plants are environmentally favorable and more sustainable. The results of economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis of the propylene value chain completion in Iran are as follows: If the selling price of methanol falls below USD 160 per ton, the internal return rate of Unit 1 will reach 11.2%. As a result, this unit will no longer have an economic rationalization for investment; therefore, it is better to convert a number of GTM units to MTP. In the pessimistic price scenario, attributable to the investment volume and low proﬁtability, none of the GTP and GTM units (Unit 1) has the necessary appeal to attract investment. However, the GTP unit has signiﬁcant investment desirability in both the optimistic and Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 18 of 23

realistic price scenarios, compared to Unit 1. As a result, it is recommended that during the planning stage, the construction of new GTP units should be given priority compared to methanolization units (Unit 1) for reasons such as the higher added value of propylene over methanol, the presence of valuable byproducts such as ethylene, LPG, and gasoline, as well as the beneﬁt from the feed discount. On the other hand, in all price scenarios (optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic), the MTP unit as compared to the methanolization unit (Unit 1) is more attractive for investment for the previously mentioned reasons. Hence, we suggest that in policy making, the development of MTP units should be given priority over the construction of new GTM units. Overall, we conclude that the development of an MTP unit for propylene production (USD 1014 million) is more economical than the construction of a new GTP unit (USD 281 million) because of lower investment costs.

6. Suggestions In the future, the price reduction of methanol in the global market is conceivable through appropriate incentives and the investment path to convert methanol to propylene. Suggestions for developing and completing the propylene production value chain from natural gas are as follows: • In policy making, natural gas pricing should be amended in such a way that the profitability of units converting natural gas to propylene is always higher than methanol units (the natural gas feed price for new methanol production units should be increased to the export gas price and the discount should only be conditioned on propylene production). This action will preclude the sale of crude methanol and expand the value chain of propylene production from natural gas. • For a balanced development of the entire propylene value chain, it is crucial to deter- mine the gas feed price of petrochemical units depending on the type of final output product from the unit (the gas feed price should be based on the output product of downstream propylene units such as polypropylene, acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, propylene, etc.). Today, approximately 95% of the propylene produced in Iran is converted to polypropylene, and only 5% is converted to 2-Ethylhexanol in the Shazand Arak Petrochemical Complex. In other words, the investment cost of acrylonitrile and acrylic acid unit is higher than polypropylene, which makes it less attractive to investors. • Because of the lack of progress in projects such as GTP and GTM, it is recommended that the licenses of unfinished and not yet started projects (with less than 30% physical progress) should be reviewed and their gas feed pricing reconsidered. • As mentioned, many valuable products in the propylene value chain are supplied through imports for various reasons, including the lack of sufficient propylene in the country and the high investment cost necessary for the development and construction of propylene value chain units. Thence, it can be concluded that “it is necessary to regulate the gradual reduction of petrochemical industry feeds, subject to part 4 of article 4”, and the annexation law of articles regulating part of the government’s financial regulations (2) approved in 2014 should be revised based on indicators such as applying a commensurate discount with the added value of downstream products and reducing imports and meeting domestic needs. • Provisioning support for investment costs, such as grants for facilities from the Na- tional Development Fund at low-interest rates or with more extended reimbursement periods, can also increase investors’ willingness to complete the propylene value chain.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.S. and A.G.; methodology, A.G.; software, M.E.; valida- tion, D.R., A.G. and A.D.; formal analysis, A.G.; investigation, R.S.; resources, D.R.; data curation, M.E.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, A.D.; visualization, D.R.; supervision, A.D.; project administration, R.S.; funding acquisition, M.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 19 of 23

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Nomenclature MTP Methanol to propylene GTP Gas to propylene GTPP Gas to polypropylene GTM Gas to methanol PTPP Propylene to polypropylene MTO Methanol to olefin LPG Liquefied petroleum gas LNG Liquefied natural gas PG Polymer grade CG Chemical grade RG Refinery grade IRR Internal rate of return MIRR Minimum return on investment SR Stoichiometric ratio ICI Imperial Chemical Industries ARC Axial radial converter FCC Fluid Catalytic Cracking SRM Steam reforming of methane DME Dimethyl ether TCI Total capital investment FCI Fixed capital investment WCI Working capital investment TPC Total Production Cost CR Cost of raw material CU Cost of utilities CL Cost of raw labor CFO Cost of factory overhead CDE Cost of depreciation NPV Net present value CI Cash inflow of year t CO Cash outflow of year t

References 1. Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Pan, Z.; Gandomi, A.H. Multi-population differential evolution-assisted Harris hawks optimization: Framework and case studies. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 111, 175–198. [CrossRef] 2. Wang, M.; Chen, H. Chaotic multi-swarm whale optimizer boosted support vector machine for medical diagnosis. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 88, 105946. [CrossRef] 3. Xu, Y.; Chen, H.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Q.; Jiao, S.; Zhang, X. Enhanced Moth-flame optimizer with mutation strategy for global optimization. Inf. Sci. 2019, 492, 181–203. [CrossRef] 4. Zhao, Y.; Lu, J.; Yang, S.; Lai, L.; Xu, L. Research on Cell Manufacturing Facility Layout Problem Based on Improved NSGA-II. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2020, 62, 355–364. [CrossRef] 5. Zhu, J.; Zhou, B.; Ma, B.; Dui, G.; Yang, S.; Xin, L. Optimization Design of RC Ribbed Floor System Using Eagle Strategy with Particle Swarm Optimization. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2020, 62, 365–383. [CrossRef] 6. Shi, X.; Li, Y.; Xie, H.; Yang, T.; Zhang, L.; Liu, P.; Zhang, H.; Liang, Z. An openflow-based load balancing strategy in sdn. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2020, 62, 385–398. [CrossRef] 7. Liu, C.; Li, K.; Li, K. A Game Approach to Multi-Servers Load Balancing with Load-Dependent Server Availability Consideration. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2021, 9, 1–13. [CrossRef] 8. Liu, C.; Li, K.; Li, K.; Buyya, R. A New Service Mechanism for Profit Optimizations of a Cloud Provider and Its Users. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2021, 9, 14–26. [CrossRef] 9. Xiao, G.; Li, K.; Chen, Y.; He, W.; Zomaya, A.Y.; Li, T. CASpMV: A Customized and Accelerative SpMV Framework for the Sunway TaihuLight. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2021, 32, 131–146. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 20 of 23

10. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Statistics-Proved Reserves of Natural Gas; Energy Information Administra- tion: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. 11. Zhao, X.; Zhang, X.; Cai, Z.; Tian, X.; Wang, X.; Huang, Y.; Chen, H.; Hu, L. Chaos enhanced grey wolf optimization wrapped ELM for diagnosis of paraquat-poisoned patients. Comput. Biol. Chem. 2019, 78, 481–490. [CrossRef] 12. Li, C.; Hou, L.; Sharma, B.Y.; Li, H.; Chen, C.; Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Huang, H.; Cai, Z.; Chen, H. Developing a new intelligent system for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2018, 153, 211–225. [CrossRef] 13. Wang, M.; Chen, H.; Yang, B.; Zhao, X.; Hu, L.; Cai, Z.; Huang, H.; Tong, C. Toward an optimal kernel extreme learning machine using a chaotic moth-flame optimization strategy with applications in medical diagnoses. Neurocomputing 2017, 267, 69–84. [CrossRef] 14. Duan, M.; Li, K.; Li, K.; Tian, Q. A Novel Multi-task Tensor Correlation Neural Network for Facial Attribute Prediction. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2021, 12, 3:1–3:22. [CrossRef] 15. Chen, C.; Li, K.; Teo, S.G.; Zou, X.; Li, K.; Zeng, Z. Citywide Traffic Flow Prediction Based on Multiple Gated Spatio-temporal Convolutional Neural Networks. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 2020, 14, 42:1–42:23. [CrossRef] 16. Zhou, X.; Li, K.; Yang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Li, K. Efficient Approaches to k Representative G-Skyline Queries. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 2020, 14, 58:1–58:27. [CrossRef] 17. Janakiraman, B.; Arumugam, S. Personalized Nutrition Recommendation for Diabetic Patients Using Optimization Techniques. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2019, 26, 269–280. [CrossRef] 18. Krishna, R.; Kumar, S.S. Color image segmentation using soft rough fuzzy-c-means and local binary pattern. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2020, 26, 281–290. [CrossRef] 19. Juang, L.-H.; Zhao, Y.-H. Intelligent Speech Communication Using Double Humanoid Robots. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2020, 26, 291–301. [CrossRef] 20. Eyupoglu, C. A Two-Level Morphological Description of Bashkir Turkish. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2019, 34, 113–121. [CrossRef] 21. Kumar, C.R.; Jayanthi, V. A Novel Fuzzy Rough Sets Theory Based CF Recommendation System. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2019, 34, 123–129. [CrossRef] 22. Oliva, A.F.; Pérez, F.M.; Berná-Martinez, J.V.; Ortega, M.A. Non-deterministic outlier detection method based on the variable precision rough set model. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2019, 34, 131–144. [CrossRef] 23. Xia, J.; Chen, H.; Li, Q.; Zhou, M.; Chen, L.; Cai, Z.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, H. Ultrasound-based differentiation of malignant and benign thyroid Nodules: An extreme learning machine approach. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2017, 147, 37–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Chen, H.; Wang, G.; Ma, C.; Cai, Z.-N.; Liu, W.-B.; Wang, S.-J. An efficient hybrid kernel extreme learning machine approach for early diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. Neurocomputing 2016, 184, 131–144. [CrossRef] 25. Shen, L.; Chen, H.; Yu, Z.; Kang, W.; Zhang, B.; Li, H.; Yang, B.; Liu, D. Evolving support vector machines using fruit fly optimization for medical data classification. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2016, 96, 61–75. [CrossRef] 26. Zhou, S.; Ke, M.; Luo, P. Multi-camera transfer GAN for person re-identification. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2019, 59, 393–400. [CrossRef] 27. Yin, B.; Wei, X. Communication-Efficient Data Aggregation Tree Construction for Complex Queries in IoT Applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 3352–3363. [CrossRef] 28. Li, W.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Xiang, L.; Yang, Y. An improved linear kernel for complementary maximal strip recovery: Simpler and smaller. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2019, 786, 55–66. [CrossRef] 29. Gui, Y.; Zeng, G. Joint learning of visual and spatial features for edit propagation from a single image. Vis. Comput. 2019, 36, 469–482. [CrossRef] 30. Li, W.; Xu, H.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Sharma, P.K.; Wang, J.; Singh, S. Complexity and Algorithms for Superposed Data Uploading Problem in Networks With Smart Devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 5882–5891. [CrossRef] 31. Wei, W.; Yongbin, J.; Yanhong, L.; Ji, L.; Xin, W.; Tong, Z. An Advanced Deep Residual Dense Network (DRDN) Approach for Image Super-Resolution. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2019, 12, 1592–1601. [CrossRef] 32. Gu, K.; Wu, N.; Yin, B.; Jia, W.J. Secure Data Query Framework for Cloud and Fog Computing. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2020, 17, 332–345. [CrossRef] 33. Song, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Li, X.; Cai, B.; Yang, G. Fast CU size decision and mode decision algorithm for intra prediction in HEVC. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2016, 76, 2001–2017. [CrossRef] 34. Zhang, D.; Liang, Z.; Yang, G.; Li, Q.; Li, L.; Sun, X. A robust forgery detection algorithm for object removal by exemplar-based image inpainting. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 11823–11842. [CrossRef] 35. Hu, L.; Hong, G.; Ma, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, H. An efficient machine learning approach for diagnosis of paraquat-poisoned patients. Comput. Biol. Med. 2015, 59, 116–124. [CrossRef][PubMed] 36. Xu, X.; Chen, H.-L. Adaptive computational chemotaxis based on field in bacterial foraging optimization. Soft Comput. 2013, 18, 797–807. [CrossRef] 37. Zhang, Y.; Liu, R.; Wang, X.; Chen, H.; Li, C. Boosted binary Harris hawks optimizer and feature selection. Eng. Comput. 2020, 1–30. [CrossRef] 38. Cao, D.; Zheng, B.; Ji, B.; Lei, Z.; Feng, C. A robust distance-based relay selection for message dissemination in vehicular network. Wirel. Netw. 2020, 26, 1755–1771. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 21 of 23

39. Gu, K.; Yang, L.; Yin, B. Location Data Record Privacy Protection based on Differential Privacy Mechanism. Inf. Technol. Control 2018, 47, 639–654. [CrossRef] 40. Luo, Y.-S.; Yang, K.; Tang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xiong, B. A multi-criteria network-aware service composition algorithm in wireless environments. Comput. Commun. 2012, 35, 1882–1892. [CrossRef] 41. Xia, Z.; Hu, Z.; Luo, J. UPTP Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Based on User Preference under Complexity Environment. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2017, 97, 4651–4665. [CrossRef] 42. Long, M.; Chen, Y.; Peng, F. Simple and Accurate Analysis of BER Performance for DCSK Chaotic Communication. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2011, 15, 1175–1177. [CrossRef] 43. Zhou, S.; Tan, B. Electrocardiogram soft computing using hybrid deep learning CNN-ELM. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 86, 105778. [CrossRef] 44. Zhang, Y.; Liu, R.; Heidari, A.A.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, H. Towards augmented kernel extreme learning models for bankruptcy prediction: Algorithmic behavior and comprehensive analysis. Neurocomputing 2021, 430, 185–212. [CrossRef] 45. Zhao, D.; Liu, L.; Yu, F.; Heidari, A.A.; Wang, M.; Liang, G.; Muhammad, K.; Chen, H. Chaotic random spare ant colony optimization for multi-threshold image segmentation of 2D Kapur entropy. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 216, 106510. [CrossRef] 46. Tu, J.; Chen, H.; Liu, J.; Heidari, A.A.; Zhang, X.; Wang, M.; Ruby, R.; Pham, Q.-V. Evolutionary biogeography-based whale optimization methods with communication structure: Towards measuring the balance. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 212, 106642. [CrossRef] 47. Siirola, J.J. The impact of shale gas in the chemical industry. AIChE J. 2014, 60, 810–819. [CrossRef] 48. BP Statistical Review of World Energy Globally Consistent Data on World Energy Markets. 2020, p. 66. Available online: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/ bp-stats-review-2020-full-report.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021). 49. Salkuyeh, Y.K.; Adams, T. A novel polygeneration process to co-produce ethylene and electricity from shale gas with zero CO2 emissions via methane oxidative coupling. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 92, 406–420. [CrossRef] 50. Zhao, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, X.; Deng, S.; Xu, J.; Wei, W. Life cycle assessment of primary energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of four propylene production pathways in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 285–292. [CrossRef] 51. Shan, W.; Qiao, Z.; Heidari, A.A.; Chen, H.; Turabieh, H.; Teng, Y. Double adaptive weights for stabilization of moth flame optimizer: Balance analysis, engineering cases, and medical diagnosis. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 214, 106728. [CrossRef] 52. Yu, C.; Chen, M.; Cheng, K.; Zhao, X.; Ma, C.; Kuang, F.; Chen, H. SGOA: Annealing-behaved grasshopper optimizer for global tasks. Eng. Comput. 2021, 1–28. [CrossRef] 53. Hu, J.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Wang, M.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Pan, Z. Orthogonal learning covariance matrix for defects of grey wolf optimizer: Insights, balance, diversity, and feature selection. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 213, 106684. [CrossRef] 54. Davarpanah, A.; Mirshekari, B. Experimental Investigation and Mathematical Modeling of Gas Diffusivity by Carbon Dioxide and Methane Kinetic Adsorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 12392–12400. [CrossRef] 55. Hu, X.; Xie, J.; Cai, W.C.; Wang, R.; Davarpanah, A. Thermodynamic effects of cycling carbon dioxide injectivity in shale reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 195, 107717. [CrossRef] 56. Davarpanah, A.; Shirmohammadi, R.; Mirshekari, B.; Aslani, A. Analysis of hydraulic fracturing techniques: Hybrid fuzzy approaches. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 402. [CrossRef] 57. Mazarei, M.; Davarpanah, A.; Ebadati, A.; Mirshekari, B. The feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an integration of improved condensate recovery processes. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2018, 9, 397–408. [CrossRef] 58. Davarpanah, A.; Mirshekari, B. Experimental study of CO2 solubility on the oil recovery enhancement of heavy oil reservoirs. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2020, 139, 1161–1169. [CrossRef] 59. Davarpanah, A.; Mazarei, M.; Mirshekari, B. A simulation study to enhance the gas production rate by nitrogen replacement in the underground gas storage performance. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 431–435. [CrossRef] 60. Zhao, X.; Li, D.; Yang, B.; Ma, C.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, H. Feature selection based on improved ant colony optimization for online detection of foreign fiber in cotton. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 24, 585–596. [CrossRef] 61. Yu, H.; Li, W.; Chen, C.; Liang, J.; Gui, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, H. Dynamic Gaussian bare-bones fruit fly optimizers with abandonment mechanism: Method and analysis. Eng. Comput. 2020, 1–29. [CrossRef] 62. Cao, Y.; Dhahad, H.A.; Farouk, N.; Xia, W.F.; Rad, H.N.; Ghasemi, A.; Kamranfar, S.; Sani, M.M.; Shayesteh, A.A. Multi-objective bat optimization for a biomass gasifier integrated energy system based on 4E analyses. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 196, 117339. [CrossRef] 63. Mei, C.; Wen, P.; Liu, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; Xie, Z.; Hua, W.; Gao, Z. Selective production of propylene from methanol: Mesoporosity development in high silica HZSM-5. J. Catal. 2008, 258, 243–249. [CrossRef] 64. Hu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, H.; Shen, W.; Tang, Y. Highly stable boron-modified hierarchical nanocrystalline ZSM-5 zeolite for the methanol to propylene reaction. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2014, 4, 2891–2895. [CrossRef] 65. Yaripour, F.; Shariatinia, Z.; Sahebdelfar, S.; Irandoukht, A. Conventional hydrothermal synthesis of nanostructured H-ZSM-5 catalysts using various templates for light olefins production from methanol. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 22, 260–269. [CrossRef] 66. Advanced Value Chain Development Center. Available online: http://oil.vcdcenter.com/ (accessed on 19 February 2021). 67. Firoozi, M.; Baghalha, M.; Asadi, M. The effect of micro and nano particle sizes of H-ZSM-5 on the selectivity of MTP reaction. Catal. Commun. 2009, 10, 1582–1585. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 22 of 23

68. Zhao, G.; Teng, J.; Xie, Z.; Jin, W.; Yang, W.; Chen, Q.; Tang, Y. Effect of phosphorus on HZSM-5 catalyst for C4-olefin cracking reactions to produce propylene. J. Catal. 2007, 248, 29–37. [CrossRef] 69. Losch, P.; Boltz, M.; Louis, B.; Chavan, S.; Olsbye, U. Catalyst optimization for enhanced propylene formation in the methanol-to- olefins reaction. C. R. Chim. 2015, 18, 330–335. [CrossRef] 70. Barros, Z.D.S.; Zotin, F.M.Z.; Henriques, C.A. Conversion of natural gas to higher valued products: Light olefins production from methanol over ZSM-5 zeolites. Adv. Pharmacol. 2007, 167, 255–260. [CrossRef] 71. Ehlinger, V.; Gabriel, K.; Noureldin, M.; El-Halwagi, M.M. Process Design and Integration of Shale Gas to Methanol. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 30–37. [CrossRef] 72. Tian, P.; Wei, Y.; Ye, M.; Liu, Z. Methanol to Olefins (MTO): From Fundamentals to Commercialization. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 1922–1938. [CrossRef] 73. Hadi, N.; Niaei, A.; Nabavi, S.R.; Farzi, A.; Shirazi, M.N. Development of a new kinetic model for methanol to propylene process on Mn/H-ZSM-5 catalyst. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2014, 28, 53–63. 74. Mokrani, T.; Scurrell, M. Gas Conversion to Liquid Fuels and Chemicals: The Methanol Route-Catalysis and Processes Develop- ment. Catal. Rev. 2009, 51, 1–145. [CrossRef] 75. Xu, A.; Ma, H.; Zhang, H.; Ying, W.; Fang, D. Conversion of Methanol to Propylene over a High Silica B-HZSM-5 Catalyst. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Nucl. Mater. Metall. Eng. 2013, 7, 179–184. 76. Mentzel, U.V.; Højholt, K.T.; Holm, M.S.; Fehrmann, R.; Beato, P. Conversion of methanol to hydrocarbons over conventional and mesoporous H-ZSM-5 and H-Ga-MFI: Major differences in deactivation behavior. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2012, 417, 290–297. [CrossRef] 77. Stöcker, M. Methanol-to-hydrocarbons: Catalytic materials and their behavior. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 1999, 29, 3–48. [CrossRef] 78. Koempel, H.; Liebner, W. Lurgi’s Methanol to Propylene (MTP®) Report on a successful commercialisation. Adv. Pharmacol. 2007, 167, 261–267. [CrossRef] 79. Jeffrey, B.; Keith, B.; Paul, D.; Benjamin, H.; Bruno, M.; Robert, P.; Julian, W. Critical Care Toxicology: Diagnosis and Management of the Critically Poisoned Patient; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [CrossRef] 80. Sun, J.; Liu, C.; Wang, Y.; Martin, K.V. Process and Catalyst for Conversion of Acetic Acid into Isobutene and Propylene. U.S. Patent 9,580,365, 28 February 2015. 81. Grubbs, R.H.; Daniel, J. Handbook of Metathesis, Volume 2: Applications in Organic Synthesis; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. 82. Nawaz, Z. Light alkane dehydrogenation to light olefin technologies: A comprehensive review. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2015, 31, 413–436. [CrossRef] 83. Iran’s Hydrocarbon Balance Sheet Published by the Iranian Ministry of Oil. Available online: http://ifco.ir/images/97 /hamlonaghl/Hydrocarbon.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2021). 84. Iran Energy Balance published by the Ministry of Energy of Iran. Available online: http://www.satba.gov.ir/suna_content/ media/image/2020/01/8026_orig.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2021). 85. Tehran Department of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture. Available online: http://www.tccim.ir/ (accessed on 12 October 2020). 86. Yang, H.; He, C.; Fu, L.; Huo, J.; Zhao, C.; Li, X.; Song, Y. Capture and separation of CO2 on BC3 nanosheets: A DFT study. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2021.[CrossRef] 87. Ren, T.; Patel, M.K. Basic petrochemicals from natural gas, coal and biomass: Energy use and CO2 emissions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 513–528. [CrossRef] 88. Ren, T.; Patel, M.K.; Blok, K. Steam cracking and methane to olefins: Energy use, CO2 emissions and production costs. Energy 2008, 33, 817–833. [CrossRef] 89. Han, Y.; Zhang, F.; Huang, L.; Peng, K.; Wang, X. Does industrial upgrading promote eco-efficiency?—A panel space estimation based on Chinese evidence. Energy Policy 2021, 154, 112286. [CrossRef] 90. Kung, H.H. Methanol production and use chemical industries. Choice Rev. Online 1995, 32, 32–3898. [CrossRef] 91. Løvik, I. Modelling, Estimation and Optimization of the Methanol Synthesis with Catalyst Deactivation; Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2001. 92. Jasper, S.; El-Halwagi, M.M. A Techno-Economic Comparison between Two Methanol-to-Propylene Processes. Processes 2015, 3, 684–698. [CrossRef] 93. Turton, R.; Bailie, R.C.; Whiting, W.B.; Shaeiwitz, J.A. Analysis, Synthesis and Design of Chemical Processes; Pearson Education: Cranbury, NJ, USA, 2008. 94. Sinnott, R.K. Chemical Engineering Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. 95. Methanol to Olefins, Process Economics Program Report 261. 2007. Available online: https://ihsmarkit.com/products/chemical- technology-pep-methanol-to-olefins-2007.html (accessed on 19 February 2021). 96. Basell’s Multizone Circulating Reactor (MZCR) Process, PEP Review 99-1. 2003. Available online: https://ihsmarkit.com/ products/chemical-technology-pep-reviews-basells-multizone-circulating-2003.html (accessed on 19 February 2021). 97. Chemical, I. Polypropylene Via Basells Multizone Circulating Reactor (MZCR) Process. 2003. Available online: https://ihsmarkit. com/products/chemical-technology-pep-reviews-basells-multizone-circulating-2003.html (accessed on 19 February 2021). Sustainability 2021, 13, 9990 23 of 23

98. Banking Profit Rates Banks’ Lending Rates for Transaction Contracts. 2018. Available online: https://www.cbi.ir/page/1494.aspx (accessed on 29 August 2021). 99. Advanced Value Chain Development Center. The Latest Prices of Chemical, Polymer and Petroleum Products. Available online: http://oil.vcdcenter.com/product-price/ (accessed on 10 July 2021). 100. IRAN IPRCOTIRO. Investigating Energy Subsidies in Industry, Mining and Petrochemicals. Available online: https://rc.majlis. ir/fa/news/show/1309766 (accessed on 10 July 2021). 101. Székely, G.; Gil, M.; Sellergren, B.; Heggie, W.; Ferreira, F.C. Environmental and economic analysis for selection and engineering sustainable API degenotoxification processes. Green Chem. 2012, 15, 210–225. [CrossRef] 102. Zhang, C.; Jun, K.-W.; Gao, R.; Kwak, G.; Park, H.-G. Carbon dioxide utilization in a gas-to-methanol process combined with CO2/Steam-mixed reforming: Techno-economic analysis. Fuel 2017, 190, 303–311. [CrossRef] 103. Salman, C.A.; Naqvi, M.R.; Thorin, E.; Yan, J. Impact of retrofitting existing combined heat and power plant with polygeneration of biomethane: A comparative techno-economic analysis of integrating different gasifiers. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 152, 250–265. [CrossRef] 104. Yang, Q.; Zhang, D.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, C. Process simulation, analysis and optimization of a coal to ethylene glycol process. Energy 2018, 155, 521–534. [CrossRef] 105. Yang, Q.; Zhu, S.; Yang, Q.; Huang, W.; Yu, P.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Z. Comparative techno-economic analysis of oil-based and coal-based ethylene glycol processes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 198, 111814. [CrossRef] 106. Xiang, D.; Qian, Y.; Man, Y.; Yang, S. Techno-economic analysis of the coal-to-olefins process in comparison with the oil-to-olefins process. Appl. Energy 2014, 113, 639–647. [CrossRef] 107. Cao, Y.; Doustgani, A.; Salehi, A.; Nemati, M.; Ghasemi, A.; Koohshekan, O. The economic evaluation of establishing a plant for producing biodiesel from edible oil wastes in oil-rich countries: Case study Iran. Energy 2020, 213, 118760. [CrossRef] 108. Salehi, A.; Karbassi, A.; Ghobadian, B.; Ghasemi, A.; Doustgani, A. Simulation process of biodiesel production plant. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38, e13264. [CrossRef] 109. Ghasemi, A.; Shayesteh, A.A.; Doustgani, A.; Pazoki, M. Thermodynamic assessment and optimization of a novel trigeneration energy system based on solar energy and MSW gasification using energy and exergy concept. J. Therm. Eng. 2021, 7, 349–366. 110. Ghasemi, A.; Moghaddam, M. Thermodynamic and environmental comparative investigation and optimization of landfill vs. Incineration for municipal solid waste: A case study in Varamin, Iran. J. Therm. Eng. 2020, 6, 226–246. [CrossRef] 111. Wu, B.; Jin, C.; Monfort, A.; Hua, D. Generous charity to preserve green image? Exploring linkage between strategic donations and environmental misconduct. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 131, 839–850. [CrossRef] 112. Miao, R.; Ma, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Z.; Guo, M. Variability of Aboveground Litter Inputs Alters Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in a Coniferous–Broadleaf Mixed Forest of Central China. Forests 2019, 10, 188. [CrossRef] 113. Hu, P.; Cao, L.; Su, J.; Li, Q.; Li, Y. Distribution characteristics of salt-out particles in steam turbine stage. Energy 2019, 192, 116626. [CrossRef] 114. Zhang, C. Control Force Characteristics of Different Control Strategies for the Wind-Excited 76-Story Benchmark Building Structure. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 17, 543–559. [CrossRef] 115. Sun, M.; Hou, B.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, L.; Song, L.; Zhang, H. Effects of NaClO shock on MBR performance under continuous operating conditions. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7, 344–396. [CrossRef] 116. Jiang, L.; Zhang, B.; Han, S.; Chen, H.; Wei, Z. Upscaling evapotranspiration from the instantaneous to the daily time scale: Assessing six methods including an optimized coefficient based on worldwide eddy covariance flux network. J. Hydrol. 2021, 596, 126135. [CrossRef] 117. Han, X.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Du, T.; Chen, H. Crop evapotranspiration prediction by considering dynamic change of crop coefficient and the precipitation effect in back-propagation neural network model. J. Hydrol. 2021, 596, 126104. [CrossRef] 118. Fan, P.; Deng, R.; Qiu, J.; Zhao, Z.; Wu, S. Well Logging Curve Reconstruction Based on Kernel Ridge Regression. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14.[CrossRef] 119. Luo, J.; Li, M.; Liu, X.; Tian, W.; Zhong, S.; Shi, K. Stabilization analysis for fuzzy systems with a switched sampled-data control. J. Frankl. Inst. 2020, 357, 39–58. [CrossRef] 120. Xie, W.; Zhang, R.; Zeng, D.; Shi, K.; Zhong, S. Strictly dissipative stabilization of multiple-memory Markov jump systems with general transition rates: A novel event-triggered control strategy. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 2020, 30, 1956–1978. [CrossRef] 121. Sun, J.; Aslani, F.; Wei, J.; Wang, X. Electromagnetic absorption of copper fiber oriented composite using 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124026. [CrossRef] 122. Valizadeh, K.; Farahbakhsh, S.; Bateni, A.; Zargarian, A.; Davarpanah, A.; Alizadeh, A.; Zarei, M. A parametric study to simulate the non-Newtonian turbulent flow in spiral tubes. Energy Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 134–149. [CrossRef]