We draw our own lines here

Feb. 23, 2015
One of the most rewarding events in the career of an OGJ editor can be the experience of opening his or her e-mail to find among the typical daily dross a line or two from our readers.

Robert Brelsford
Downstream Technology Editor

One of the most rewarding events in the career of an OGJ editor can be the experience of opening his or her e-mail to find among the typical daily dross a line or two from our readers. This is especially true when a note takes the form of a comment or question regarding a news story the editor has written, which we write based on information we receive from official industry sources.

Usually, and in the best cases, these e-mails take the tone of a thank-you or job-well-done. At other times, in those worst cases, they might contain an endless rant over a flubbed detail or, frequently, a demand for additional details.

In either case, however, receiving these correspondences from our readership is remarkable. It reminds us that we have great readers. They're invested, discriminating, attentive, and knowledgeable, even in those instances when their tone may take that rare acerbic turn. Letters from readers remind us that our work has purpose, our words indeed are read, and that what we do bears meaning well beyond these cubicle walls.

Above all else, though, these little notes keep OGJ editors on our game.

Crossing lines

This OGJ editor has been privileged to receive frequent messages from his readers. Most take the form of that greatly appreciated thank-you, while some are simply requests for previous OGJ coverage of a topic.

Of course, there also have been those of that rambling-and-rolling, ranting-and-raving ilk. But given the absolute disregard for language, punctuation, grammar, and style, as well as the lack of reference to anything about our industry, these clearly fall into the category of non-OGJ readers and are deleted.

Over the past couple of weeks, however, a string of messages that bare the shape and mark of those bombastic tirades began to arrive. This arrival coincided with the start of United Steelworkers union's (USW) strike at what now totals 11 US refineries (OGJ Online, Feb. 9, 2015; Feb. 6, 2015; Feb. 2, 2015).

While their authors created what appear to be anonymous e-mail accounts, the messages share in great detail the experiences of laborers still at work in refineries affected by the strike. While one author confesses she is a permanent employee of the refinery's owner-operator, the others relate details suggesting they have been brought in as temporary help. One may be a union member continuing to work on a rolling 24-hr basis.

Their stories relate details about confrontations at refineries that this editor neither has seen nor heard reported by any of our traditional media outlets, much less by the strike-impacted companies or USW.

While the contents of these e-mails will remain between those authors and this reader, the situation raises a broader question: When the official parties keep information lines blurred, where does an OGJ editor stand?

Our own line

At this writing at presstime last week, USW's strike was creeping towards its fourth week. Discussions between Royal Dutch Shell PLC-which serves as lead negotiator for the refiners-and USW were at a standstill.

The most recent official press releases from both companies and union offered little more than they did on the Feb. 1 start of the strike.

Releases from both continue to repeat the same information with only slight variations in word choice and sentence structure. In some cases, the exact same sentences have started to appear in alternate daily releases.

The long and short of it is that the information OGJ editors have to rely on to report events to you, our readers, is as thin as the tightrope on which PR personnel for both the companies and USW are trying to walk.

In this instance, OGJ, as it always has, draws its own line. We report what we can confirm. We don't take sides. We deliver the facts-and nothing but.