Huge win for the climate as Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields are ruled unlawful

19 Replies to “Huge win for the climate as Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields are ruled unlawful”

1. Would this ruling still be considered a “win” if the companies involved obtain re-consent once they submit the required emissions information?

   Would this ruling still be considered a “win” if the re-consent application is denied but the UK’s hydrocarbon requirements are met through increased hydrocarbon imports, including from sources not obliged to report on scope 3 emissions?

   Reply

   1. Hi Paul and thanks for your message.

      1. Yes, it would be a “win” because the decision would have been made with full knowledge of the impact of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. Of course we hope that the sites will not be reconsented. The government is now reconsidering its approach to the assessment of scope 3 emissions and we and many others have submitted our views on this. We hope the new regime will be robust enough that climate-damaging fossil fuel production will not get consent. https://www.wealdactiongroup.org.uk/2025/01/7605/

      2. These two sites would have a negligible impact on hydrocarbon imports. More than 80% of UK oil is exported and we import a similar amount. Rosebank would not change this. In the case of Jackdaw’s gas, the licences that have been issued in the last 15 years have provided the UK with a grand total of 16 days worth of gas. And half of this has been produced by one field, which is part-owned by Gazprom, and has been exported to the Netherlands.

      These two sites wouldn’t solve any of the issues we face, such as energy security, lower bills or jobs. They would simply make extremely rich oil companies even richer, based on handouts from UK taxpayers. The real growth area that will help the UK is renewable energy and that is where the investment needs to go.

      Reply

      1. Thank you for your explanation.

         The key issue is not oil and gas production but its consumption. As long as the UK population wants, or has to, consume more oil and gas than it produces, why not produce as much as possible locally? Naturally, in respect of environmental requirements (personally, I am not in favour of onshore extraction). Many countries would love to have the good fortune to have the UK’s hydrocarbon deposits. So, I struggle to understand the logic of being prepared to import and use oil and gas but not extract it locally offshore. Having available alternative sources of energy is, of course, part of the picture, but pulling up the hydrocarbons drawbridge before alternatives are available and economic is illogical and, potentially, reckless. Plus, there are many things as yet for which no substitute is available, such as for plastics, cement, fertiliser, and more.

         The UK’s average oil consumption per day is around 1,300,000 barrels and daily UK production is around 645,000 barrels. No projection scenarios show the UK as becoming self-sufficient in hydrocarbons this century. Rosebank and Jackdaw are projected to produce around 120,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, an amount compared with both current and projected demand and production therefore difficult to consider negligible.

         UK hydrocarbon production does support UK energy security, jobs, and GDP/economic growth. It can also support lower bills, as longer-term the state would have greater tax receipts from the companies involved and from the associated increased economic activity. Increased UK hydrocarbon production instead of increased hydrocarbon imports certainly would not act to increase bill

         Due to domestic refining capability, most of the oil exported goes to nearby NL for refining and is later reimported into the UK (naturally, the re-imported refined products are not necessarily from the exact same crude oil exported – the net amount of oil imported is the relevant figure to consider). Whether oil extracted in the UK is sent for refining to Fawley or Pembroke in the UK or to The Netherlands or elsewhere outside the UK, therefore, changes little to nothing. Not to communicate this when stating most UK is exported as a reason not to produce oil in the UK suggests being uninformed or disingenuous.

         Oil extraction companies, which can, meaning mainly the “Majors”, are fleeing the UK as the regulatory and fiscal conditions do not justify the investment risks. With them goes their investment potential, including in alternative energy sources, and causes reduced hydrocarbon production and, consequentially, reduced… jobs and GDP/economic growth. The biggest issue is likely not to find ways to discourage the oil companies but how to keep them in and investing in the UK.

         The transition to alternative energy sources does not need to be pitted against domestic hydrocarbon production, an energy source which the UK will still need for many decades. It does not need to be either/or hydrocarbons and alternative energy sources. The transition needs to be managed in a rational way and with a timeline which strives to avoid unintended consequences, such as making the UK less energy secure and poorer.

         I hope my arguments help to see the side of the debate where prejudice against North Sea developments is both premature and irrational, and therefore how not providing re-consent for Rosebank and Jackdaw would be a huge loss for the UK.

         Reply

         1. Hi Paul, Thank you for your reply. We don’t agree that opposition to these North Sea developments is premature or irrational. Far from premature, the International Energy Agency said that no new fossil fuel projects should be approved anywhere in the world as of the end of 2021 if we are to meet globally agreed climate targets. There is more than enough oil & gas in already operating fields and no need to open new ones apart from to increase the wealth of already fabulously profitable companies.

            According to the latest DUKES statistics, 87% of crude oil from the UK coastal shelf is exported. 42% went to the Netherlands and 13% to UK refineries. When oil refined from the Netherlands is reimported, we pay the global market price.

            Rosebank and Jackdaw don’t offer the sustainable economic growth and long-term jobs the government is seeking. Jobs in the oil & gas sector have been declining steadily, more than half the jobs supported by the sector have been lost in the last decade. This is because the North Sea is a mature basin. That’s a geological reality and tax breaks won’t change it. You mentioned tax receipts – but the companies behind these fields (which are vastly profitable, Equinor made £6.4 billion in Q4 of 2024 alone) will benefit from billions of pounds in tax breaks. The UK taxpayer will pick up most of the cost of developing the field and the beneficiaries will be foreign companies, not British people.

            We absolutely agree that the transition needs to be managed in a rational way. We believe that means taking the climate emergency seriously, continuing to use oil & gas from already developed fields while rapidly reducing energy consumption and developing renewables. Opening new fields is not managing the transition but postponing it.

            Thank you again for taking the time to share your views. Rational and informed discussion is much needed in these polarised times.

            Reply

2. I certainly echo your sentiment that informed, reasoned, rational, and respectful discussion is what is needed. This is the mature way for positions and opinions to be moulded.

   Putting aside whether the IEA, for such matters, is the appropriate arbiter, their predictions accurate, or indeed if climate targets should override everything, they do not have to think about the security of individual countries. Alternative energy sources, especially wind and solar, are unreliable, and without suitable back-up to cover their intermittency, cannot yet guarantee power supply. Plus, some needs will require hydrocarbons for many many decades. It would be dangerous and reckless for a country to rely on unproven alternative energy supply predictions, and on such predictions ability to distribute and deliver power where needed. Therefore, I consider it a risk too great to discontinue with the existing energy sources until my concerns are adequately addressed. As I am sure you’re aware, around the world many new hydrocarbon fields are being developed, and exploration continues apace. As an example, concerning China and Russia, see https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3296670/chinas-15km-drill-project-quest-deep-earth-energy-resources . You will have seen President Trump’s “drill baby drill” plans for the US. I agree, it would be giving a worthy leadership signal for the UK to cut all new production opportunities, but such action would be naïve and, as said, reckless and dangerous. The timing and trade-offs associated with the energy transition needs re-thinking.

   Another reason UK crude is exported is its sulphur content of crude which makes it less cost effective to process in the UK. Whatever the reasons for and the amount of UK crude exported, I repeat, it changes little to nothing. Sold and processed in the UK or sent abroad and reprocessed, I agree will not significantly affect the price to the consumer. The difference is crude produced in the UK creates direct and indirect jobs, increases economic growth/GDP, and improves security. Both energy security and the country’s security. (If needed, in an unthinkable emergency scenario, the UK could quickly bring on extra refining capacity.)

   Oil and gas exploration and production companies take great risks and invest over very long timeframes. The risk to reward ratio reflects this. The price of oil during Covid should be remembered. If the preference is to discourage investment, then capital will go elsewhere, as it already has and will continue to do. Expecting to privatise risk and nationalise reward, as is being done in the UK now, is not sustainable. Market fixing as this is a step away from a centrally controlled type of economy, and the UK’s populations shows few signs of wanting this. Perhaps another reason oil and gas production in the UK is being discouraged is the fear the competition such activity would cause across the supply chain for renewables/”unreliables”. More centrally controlled market thinking. To the point about the North Sea being a mature basin and the fields there not offering sustainable economic growth, my argument is to let the market decide. About Equinor, I assume you know they are owned 67% by the Norwegian state, and that Norway is the biggest source for both oil and gas for the UK. I don’t understand how you conclude the UK taxpayer would pick up the cost of developing these fields. More detail would be needed for me to be able to comment properly on this.

   It’s good we absolutely agree an energy transition is needed and that it must be managed in a rational way. It’s the drivers and trade-offs behind this “rational way” we differ on. I see your points, and, in an ideal world, I could even agree with them, but where we are right now, I view it as foolhardy to take the risks, either at an individual family level or at a country level, that the policy you propose would bring. Tellingly, in your penultimate paragraph, you put “while rapidly reducing energy consumption”. I agree with you on this objective, to reduce energy consumption, but… it is not going to happen. I base this prediction on evidence from past transitions, demographics (both in numbers and in expectation of standard of living increases in “developing countries” and therefore energy consumption per capita increases), and… human nature. It would be great if I am wrong, but it is a risk I am not willing to take. You, it appears, have a different calculation of the trade-offs and a higher risk threshold.

   The conclusion from your reasoning is the desire for a centrally controlled economy and an energy strategy controlled at a global level (““energy” is the economy”, but this is another discussion) leading to a lower standard of living/simpler way of life. I can see the benefits of such an arrangement, but history has shown the drawbacks it brings. It is also a scenario I consider unacceptable and dangerous for the UK to plan around and, anyway, it is not going to happen. That countries with a more centrally controlled organisation are going hell for leather to find new oil and gas should be a big enough warning.

   The UK should indeed be giving leadership in driving the transition, including to net zero, but the transition must include the existing energy sector, and it’s supply chain, and be on a reasoned and rational forward=projected timeframe, not working back from a timeframe driven more by wishful thinking and ideology. Leadership based on unreliable assumptions is a poor example to give. The UK instead of bolstering domestic supply, enabling production from the North Sea and attracting new investment into the North Sea, has discouraged investment and has become increasingly reliant upon imports. This approach spooked the energy sector and its supply chain and knocked confidence at precisely the wrong moment. I therefore remain of the opinion that prejudice against North Sea developments is both premature and irrational, There could still be time to recover the situation, and a re-consent of Rosebank and Jackdaw would be a win and a signal in the right direction. Yes, climate issues need to be taken seriously, but so do a country’s security issues and its people’s condition. The key will be to find the suitable mix of trade-offs for the so-called energy trilemma. On this you have one view, I have another. That’s the way it should be as we wait to see the decisions our elected officials will arrive at.

   Reply

   1. Hi Paul

      Thanks for the further reply. As you say, we have different calculations of the trade-offs. We believe that tackling the climate crisis has to be the highest priority – for lots of reasons, including financial. Just think about the hundreds of millions of pounds in damage and clean-up costs after Storm Eowyn two weeks ago and the flooding this winter.

      Just to pick up on a couple of points you made:

      Solar and wind are improving rapidly and importantly, don’t have the major downside of worsening climate change.

      Reducing energy consumption is not impossible. Many technologies are now far more energy efficient than they used to be and that will continue. Simple steps could help – like insulating homes and improving public transport and infrastructure for walking and cycling, would help. However there’s no doubt that we do need to curb the excessive consumption of the richest of us. Researchers say a global population of 10 billion could enjoy decent living standards while using 60% less energy than today, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512

      On the UK taxpayer picking up the bill, Equinor use a tax break called Ringfence Expenditure Supplement (RFES) which secured them £400m tax relief in 2021 and 2022. https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/rosebank-equinor-oil-and-gas-tax-break-north-sea-4837476

      It’s not just climate campaigners who believe the time has come for new oil & gas in the North Sea to end. The majority (70%) of UK business leaders support Labour’s policy to end new oil and gas licensing in the North Sea. https://www.upliftuk.org/post/majority-of-uk-business-leaders-back-an-end-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licensing

      Thank you again for your posts.

      Reply

3. Thanks, again, for engaging and replying.

   Your position comes across as admirably worthy, however, as it will not change anything regarding the climate, I consider it wholly misguided. This because limiting oil gas production in the UK will simply result in replacement extraction elsewhere for import into the UK. Taking such risks as you propose for nothing is therefore just leadership signalling, for what purpose I don’t know, and at the expense of making the UK poorer. I consider it an irrational trade-off not in the interests of the UK population.

   Unless and until solar and wind “improvements” address in some way their intermittency, they are as much “unreliables” as renewables. You seem to have omitted to consider the hydrocarbons required to manufacture, transport, place, maintain, and distribute the energy from solar and wind. Many say how producing electricity by these means is cheaper than using gas. The problem is that these comments do not factor in the cost of providing power in all situations. The cost of 100% power supply back-up must be added to the cost of solar and wind to get a true cost. Somewhat counter intuitively, the higher the percentage of electricity provided by solar and wind the higher the cost of electricity sourced via gas. The fixed costs of the gas production would be spread across an ever smaller and smaller amount of production. This is not a situation caused by gas, but by the intermittency, the unreliability, of solar and wind. For a fair cost comparison, either the cost of back-up or of energy storage has to be added to the capital, maintenance, and generation costs of solar and wind. And, the argument that electricity in the UK is expensive because gas is expensive does not hold water because all gas importing countries pay more or less the same international price and many countries have much lower electricity prices.

   I agree there are things which could reduce energy consumption. I fear we humans could be victims of our own success, in the sense that the more living standards of more of us are raised, the more energy use will be increased. The savings in the “developed” world is likely to be just tinkering round the edges compared with the energy consumption increases per capita in the sub-continent, China, and Africa. Can “we” expect “them”, enlightened by our wisdom, to accept to be told they cannot aspire to the living standards we have?

   Regarding Equinor, I really don’t know enough about tax breaks, subsidies, and similar, to comment properly. Plus, my issue is not about Equinor specifically but in general about prejudice against North Sea developments being premature and irrational. The earnings you quoted for Equinor were on worldwide activities not just those in the UK. You said before Equinor will benefit from billions of pounds in tax breaks, but the amount in the article was $400 million. Is this an annual amount maybe? You also affirmed the UK taxpayer will pick up most of the cost of developing the field and the beneficiaries will be foreign companies, not British people. The estimates are that Rosebank will require £8.1 billion of direct investment, that it will cost £4.1 billion to develop Rosebank and a further £3.6 billion in operating expenses. £400 million is a relatively small amount compared with £8.1 billion. See: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/equinor-files-key-document-ahead-of-plans-to-invest-billions-in-uk-oil-and-gas-project/ . This will benefit British people as would the tax paid, currently at 78%, on eventual profits from the production. (We could also discuss subsidies paid to solar and, especially, wind, and the artificially high auction prices paid via the CFD system, and payments made not to produce electricity etc, but this too would be outside the scope of my main point that…. prejudice against North Sea developments is both premature and irrational.)

   Rosebank and Jackdaw are not new licences. Ending new licencing rounds should not change anything for fields already licenced. What was unlawfully approved regarding Rosebank and Jackdaw was consent to proceed to production. The current government’s declared policy is to stop issuing new licenses, not to withhold consent for existing licences for production/drilling once reporting requirements are satisfied. I too can agree “the decision to ban new rounds of oil and gas licensing sends a strong message about the UK Government’s commitment to the energy transition”, but that does not necessarily mean I agree with the decision. Fortunately, there are many other licensed fields in the North Sea where consent to initiate production can be requested. I can understand why 70% of business leaders support an end to new rounds of licencing. Presumably, they will have come to that conclusion knowing many licenced fields already exist with the potential for new production. Stopping developments such as Rosebank and Jackdaw would also likely remove the option for new licencing rounds, should a future government decide to re-instate this, as the UK will have been written-off as an unreliable destination for this type of investment, plus the required supply chain and skills-base would probably have been compromised. As a side, the same survey also reported “the majority believe that the UK will be able to move away from fossil fuels by 2050”. It is pure fantasy to think by 2050 the UK will not have any need, both for use directly and indirectly, for hydrocarbons.

   Reply

   1. Thanks Paul

      We are not going to agree on this.

      You’re right, the government’s policy is to keep existing fields open for their lifetime and not to issue new licences. For already licensed but not yet consented fields the environmental impact assessment that is part of the consenting process will now have to include an assessment of the climate impacts of the combustion of the fuel. That’s the result of our win in the Supreme Court. The government is currently consulting on how that assessment should happen.

      Did you hear Ed Miliband discuss this on the BBC Today programme? It’s about 2 hours 12 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0027lbt

      Reply

4. Yes, it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

   Thank you for pointing me to the interview, which I listened to. Mr Miliband is simply no longer a credible person. Unless he tries to slow-track or pull some sneakiness in the process on how the Scope 3 emissions should be assessed, the conclusion has to be that re-consent for these fields will be provided soonest. Following the Court of Session’s ruling, Sarah Finch said the government “must stop licensing new oil and gas projects”. This was already government policy, so the Court of Session process was not needed for this. Indeed, the Court of Session’s ruling changes nothing regarding future licencing. Also, I cannot see anything in the comments on your site from the others, Alice Owen, Tessa Khan, Phillip Evans, that the Court of Session’s ruling has changed. One, therefore, has to ask if the waste of resources; time, effort, cost, and the associated disruption, was worth it. Instead, if the key relevant parties had consulted probably they would of found an amicable out-of-court solution to provide a suitable Scope 3 emissions assessment as a supplement to the original consent application.

   On the above basis, are you still happy to consider the Court of Session’s ruling was “a huge victory for campaign groups Uplift and Greenpeace UK” and “a huge win for the climate”?

   Thank you for the exchange of information and views and, enjoy the weekend.

   Reply

   1. Thanks Paul.

      Yes we consider the Court of Session’s ruling was a huge victory. Thanks to the ‘Finch’ ruling by the Supreme Court in June 2024, regulators are now required to consider the impact of burning the oil and gas extracted from a project when assessing its environmental impact. This did not happen before. The Court of Session ruled that this should apply to Rosebank and therefore the consents for those two fields had been granted unlawfully by the previous government. The decisions will now be made again, in accordance to the law. That is a good outcome and we congratulate Uplift and Greenpeace for their campaigning.

      Reply

5. To this casual outside observer it looks like the original objectives of the Weald Action Group have been hijacked by Uplift and Greenpeace to serve their purposes of promoting an overly rapid phase out of oil and gas production in general in the UK, something which would be against the social, economic, and security interests of the UK. Somewhat ironically, less UK hydrocarbon production actually increases emissions.

   Perhaps you consider Uplift and Greenpeace’s actions against Rosebank and Jackdaw as giving you exposure and leverage. It may, instead, end up as having been better for your specific aims if things had not gone beyond the Supreme Court decision. Pursuing matters through the Scottish Courts looks very similar to the tactics used to block and delay other infrastructure and house building planning consent that the current government is determined to stop. Could a similar outcome as obtained via the Court of Session ruling not have been achieved with a different method and using far far less resources? Perhaps I am being naive to think this possible.

   I am fine with the requirement, legally obliged or otherwise, to consider the impact of burning the oil and gas extracted from a field. Why, though, just new fields? Why not also consider the impact of burning the oil and gas extracted from existing UK fields? And, what about the impact of burning from imported hydrocarbons? Is it not logical that to allow imports they also should have a certificate or whatever to evidence a similar impact analysis has been conducted? Why should imported hydrocarbons be subjected to different and inferior environmental reporting standards than locally produced hydrocarbons? Refiners wanting to export to the UK would be obliged to verify crude they purchased came with suitable Scope 3 reporting. Pipeline operators would have to do similar for gas. It could be complicated and messy at the start to implement. However, demanding imports meet the same environmental reporting standards as required in the UK would send a very strong message. It would also demonstrate actual meaningful leadership as well as causing a real and practical impact beyond the UK’s shores. Your thoughts?

   Reply

6. Now that your mission has mutated from “fighting ONSHORE oil and gas” to being against ALL new oil and gas production in the UK, and considering no projections show the UK will ever produce anywhere near the amount of oil and gas it will consume, and that imports will create higher emissions and prices, reduce jobs, economic growth, energy and general security, and have lower environmental reporting requirements, the only logical conclusion is that you consider it acceptable to damage and weaken the UK and it’s population. A perplexing situation, and it has to be questioned what is behind such a perverse anti-UK objective. Perhaps you could explain?

   Reply

7. Considering the security situation the UK now faces, does The Weald Action Group maintain its opposition to new consent and permitting of production from already licensed offshore oil and gas fields in the UK?
   (Naturally, assuming the plans respect the legally required reporting and general requirements concerning emissions.)

   Reply

   1. Hi Paul. Absolutely. The biggest risk to our energy security is staying dependent on fossil fuel markets. Only by transitioning as quickly as possible to clean power can the UK take back control of our energy. The bleak geopolitical situation makes this more important than ever.

      Thank you for engaging with our posts and taking the time to share your views. You’ve written a number of comments on different posts on our websites. We replied to three or four earlier. As it’s clear that we’ll never agree, it doesn’t feel a good use of our time to keep replying to comments making very similar points.

      Reply

8. Thank you for your response.

   The biggest current risk for the UK is its general security and economic prosperity. Tanks, trucks, fighter jets and the like will not run now on electricity. Taxes on working people cannot be increased. Investment and jobs will seek the cheapest energy sources. An energy transition, including to so-called clean power, “as quickly as possible”, will not make the UK more energy secure but it will make the UK ever weaker and poorer. Why would you want this?

   The reality of emissions projections by country is clear. The UK’s local emissions are less than 1% of the world’s total, and UK hydrocarbons production creates less emissions than imports. The so-called leadership position you want the UK to adopt is ultimately only going to result in virtue signalling. You must know all this, so you must also prefer ideology to override reality. I consider this as dangerous and against the UK’s interests.

   Hydrocarbons are not consumed in the UK just for electricity production. If your members don’t want the UK to produce hydrocarbons, instead of accepting to import them it would be more consistent, dare I say, and in a way not intended to offend, less hypocritical and more worthy of respect, if they avoided to continue to consume hydrocarbons directly or indirectly. A response to this could be such a choice is not practical, not possible, and that is exactly the point I am making. I am fine with moving away from hydrocarbon consumption in any form, but it must be done in a realistic way with a realistic timeframe and way that does not make the country vulnerable and poorer. My expectation is a reality-driven sense will prevail, and policies and conditions will be out in place resulting in the UK continuing to produce hydrocarbons from the offshore fields already licenced, including from those fields currently not producing. Possibly, future governments could even reverse the announced forthcoming ban on the issue of new licences.

   We will indeed likely never agree because of the different perspectives we start from. A pragmatic perspective based on reality verses one driven by desire and ideology.

   As you suggest, let’s leave it there, at least for now, and I thank you for the civilised exchange of views and desires.

   Reply

9. I am pleased to see, based my on Rachel Reeves statement last weekend, my expectation that reality-driven sense will prevail would appear to be playing out:

   “We said in our manifesto that they [existing licenses, including Rosebank and Jackdaw] would go ahead, that we would honour existing licenses, and we’re committed to doing that, and go ahead they will.

   “North Sea oil and gas is going to be really important to the UK economy for many, many decades to come.

   “And we want to make sure that fields that have already got licenses can continue to exploit those reserves and bring them to market.”

   Reply

10. Let’s see what today brings : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/19/ed-miliband-to-give-north-sea-drilling-the-go-ahead/

    Reply

    1. Indeed

       Reply

       1. Plenty of mixed messaging from Mr Shanks today in Aberdeen. Clarify has been given, but nothing is certain, each case will be evaluated separately and independently, and so on and so on. Like, let’s pretend nothing has yet really changed. “Your” Ms Khan saying that this new guidance cannot have come at a more critical time, and “In the case of the Rosebank oil field, which Equinor can now seek reapproval for, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the project is incompatible with the UK’s climate commitments,” adding “Whether or not this government then follows the science and rejects Rosebank will be a real test of its climate credibility.”, is challenging Mr Miliband. To make such comments, she must also be already fully aware of the new rules and what Equinor and others will put in their re/new applications. Ms Khan is putting on a brave face, trying to show a win from a loss, as it is clear the nod and a wink has been given for Jackdaw, Rosebank and others to proceed. As we have discussed before, the main issue to address is not hydrocarbon extraction but hydrocarbon consumption. If there was reduced consumption there would be reduced extraction. To also note, that for imported hydrocarbons, the extraction and shipping, including the liquification and gasification, does not count towards the importers carbon budget but against the exporters. Maybe this is why Mr Miliband is so economically irrational in this resistance to extraction in the UK.

          Having said all this… nothing is over until it is over, so we will have to wait and see how the applications progress.

          Reply