The trayed section was proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of trays vs packing. Simulation results showed decreased CO 2 capture performance, so more packing was added to the top section to compensate. However, it is still expected that design 2A will not provide the same capture performance as designs 1 or 2B. Contingency and contractor overhead costs are included in these two cost estimates, but the exact figures are not given. For consistency with the other absorbers, an 8% contingency is assumed (based on Absorber 3) and this amount is subtracted from the cost of scope.