ROBERT BRELSFORD
Downstream Technology Editor
At its core, the job of any OGJ technology editor involves one guiding principle identifiable across each of the disciplines we cover. Whether upstream or downstream, or the midstream that falls between or after, the editor's role boils down to thoughtfully selecting content to fit the framework of a context.
When it comes to editing technical articles, this usually is a cinch. Contributing authors supply both content and context, leaving us to ensure those elements align in way that delivers useful and operations-oriented information to our readership.
But, as Hamlet would say, there's the rub. It's that word we use to regulate and frame the context of any news item or technical article that makes its way on to the pages of OGJ: operations.
Some aspiring OGJ contributors harp on our requirement that the content we publish-with very few exceptions-must fall within the context of actual operations. This threshold, however, exists for a very good reason.
The dangers of theory
A wonderful example of why OGJ prefers content grounded in real-life, actual operations is the early-April release of the US Energy Information Administration's report entitled "Technical Options for Processing Additional Light Tight Oil Volumes within the United States."
While the report earned an honorable mention in our pages (OGJ Online, Apr. 6, 2015), OGJ readers will notice it did not garner the extended coverage a topic of such great interest to our industry normally would merit.
Believe me, this downstream editor attempted to write about it.
Remember, however, that pesky threshold we have about content in the context of actual operations? It applies to government-issued reports, too.
The report, while offering a general overview of refining options for increasing US (LTO), also made some broader assumptions about the US refining industry that, while not entirely inaccurate, did not capture the absolute reality of domestic refiners' abilities to innovate and optimize their operations to accommodate rising production.
There are a host of examples this editor could list, but aside from the report's suggestion that building a full greenfield refinery would be a feasible option for US refiners to increase LTO processing, he will leave those for readers to discover on their own.
The real issue posed by the report is that these suggestions and possible options were formulated with absolutely no mention of or citations to consultation with actual US refiners. Worse yet, general media outlets latched onto and widely publicized some of the assertions made in the report that, in reality, simply promote grossly inaccurate perceptions about US refiners' present and future options for handling domestic LTO supplies.
A study in contrast
A report similar to the EIA's also recently was released by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. This study, which did make its way onto the pages of OGJ in an extended piece (OGJ Online, Mar. 19, 2015), was based on information provided by 23 companies on 69 US refineries that accounted for 61% of total US processing capacity in 2014.
While there are consistencies between the two reports, AFPM's report provides a content rich in operational details within a context of actual operations, submitted by actual operators.
Given the choice, which report would you prefer to inform your operational decisions?
Or, as the OGJ editor would ask: "Which report would be of most use to my readership?"
In the end, it's not a contest between the two reports. Rather, it's a question of editorial selectivity. Which of these reports provides content that best fits its context?
As OGJ editors, we don't try to fill up the space of pages simply because we can. We fill it with those things that best will serve our readers.
