On Passing the Petroleum Professional Engineering Exam
Friday, October 28, 2016
Open Thread - 2016 PE Exam Comments
2016 is history. Leave any comments (and suggestions for blog and GB improvements) in the comments below. I would enjoy hearing from anyone and everyone.
I hate this test. It's not a test of what your knowledges but how well you can take the test and avoid the pit fall. It would set you up with distraction answers, and common mistake as answers. Then it would give you a graph and just looking at answer, Could it really be that simple ??
I think this is just set up to mess with your head. Did i mention I hate this test? Is this something i want to take again ? I am not sure. I think it just looks good on the resume, so i can say i'm a PE. I'm not sure if i pass or not, but with all the information going in. You can't help it but fall into the pit. They will get you. This is what makes it hard.
I think the test does challenge knowledge, but it's often hard to figure out what is being asked for.
I like your comment "Could it really be that simple?" I experience this a lot, and often later realized that yes, it really wasn't that simple...and many other, realized I had wasted a whole minute looking at it for no reason!
But there are some good reasons to take the PE Exam:
1) It proves to any future employer you are a sharp individual. I would seriously look at it when hiring. 2) It proves you are well rounded in petroleum; many people specialize so deeply they have a hard time working in drilling teams anymore. 3) It forces you to build a nice library. 4) In my state, I can stamp anything: mechanical, civil, etc. So if you decide to move into a different field, you already have the stamp.
The test was difficult in my opinion since it was not classical petroleum engineering except handful of questions. I think there were error in one question morning and one afternoon. Did any one notice a possible error or I did a mistake?
I think the test deliberately tries to avoid "classical petroleum engineering" and instead focuses on familiarity with the subject.
I strongly doubt there are any errors in the questions, because they would have been rooted out. When something seems amiss, it's often a trick that if one had had time to really dig in, it makes sense.
Yeap exactly. You couldn't have said it better. I felt that there were only a very very few tough calculations problem. The hideous vapor question was certainly one. ( but I might be wrong)
Hi. I will only speak in non specific terms about the test. (Please no problem specifics). I did want to thank you for publishing and making available your guidebook. It was my most used reference. I was surprised by how little I used any of my other references. I opened them often but maybe only once did I ever find anything in them that actually helped to answer the questions. Maybe they are moving away from just knowing "how to find stuff" like parameters out of Halliburton red book. Most of these were all given. I thought the test was well designed. It definitely tested your ability to know how to think and solve a problem. That said nothing was straight of out a book or an example problem. All variations of problems so you couldn't plug and chug. There were a few problems I thought were either errors or missing one piece of data needed to solve. Would have like to known the problem to report to NCEES but can't take any info out obviously. Now comes the waiting.
Wow, what I great comment. I agree with pretty much everything.
I was utterly shocked at how little my resources helped. The testers certainly prevent it from become a "battle of references". They also make a point to make sure we don't need the Redbook or any specific data or chart. Sometimes I looked something up in a hurry only to realize later I didn't need to...had I been smart enough to see it.
The only thing I might take exception with: I strongly doubt there are any errors on the exam. I bet a lot of those problems are just tricks, and when I saw it, was like, that's low! I just barely spotted the trick several times, swearing it was a test error a moment before I saw the trick.
I didn't use a single reference for a calculation problem except for the guide book; I did however use at least 6 different references (primarily the SPE handbook series & applied drilling engineering)to answer multiple word problems.
What cut-off number do you think will result in 50% pass rate? Last year seems cut-off was 45 with ~ 50% pass rate. Anyone had test last year? Was it similar to last year? Easier or more difficult?
YES. I meant the 2004 sample exam. There were way more calculation problems and classic problems that I have thoroughly mastered in the 2004 sample exam. With that said there were still some thorough questions that you can only get if u specialized in a field and know what reference to look up. With that said, I feel that the SPE handbook wasn't too helpful.
David, this is one area where I disagree with you. I answered at least 7 or 8 word problems with the help of the SPE handbook series (although I felt at best 70% on any answer)...
Jason, I've heard that quite a bit, so I think you are correct and thus I'm revising my opinion here.
I think my problem was that I had to wait so long to take the exam I just knew a lot of those questions without looking them up. I have my weak areas, and the GB has a lot of that stuff, but the areas I know a lot about I didn't think to include that material (and of course didn't need to look them up for on the exam) so it just remained below my radar. Your 7-8 questions seems about right.
But I also think that if the average person has to look up too many problems they could get into serious time issues. I would. Hey, not all of us old guys are that fast anymore :-).
Thanks David. Sorry, I forgot the specifics part about the discussion. In my opinion the exam was hard. Not that it was with harder classical problems, it was more tricky or vague unclear and really some non petroleum. Your guide book helped a lot. Wish I would have got it earlier. Moj, I thought there was a mistake in one of the problems in PM session.
Aliph, I think your assessment is very accurate. Tricky? YES. Vague? YES. Unclear? YES. Lots of petroleum "grey area" questions? YES.
One of the problems with the GB is that it is very dense, and you have to know each page very well (especially all the tiny commnets!) to make it sing. So when a question comes up, you can flip to the right page right away. So it takes several months of use to make it very useful.
It was way more words problems than I expected. I find the morning session was a bit easier. The afternoon was a nightmare. Yes were trying to move away from the plug and chuck questions. But what is engineering with no calculations... arts? And Mr Dammeyer what is your take on the exam
adebem23, when I took it in 2015 I found the PM way harder too. But many others felt the opposite. So it's probably just subject selection (each of us has our strengths) or perhaps I was just really, really tired.
I love the "arts" comment! It's a lot of the reason I wrote my GB and practice exam was to try and give people a way to practice this style of exam, which is quite different than any other I've seen. I'm an ME, and while I've never taken it, I can guarantee the ME exam is far "normal" than this one! Petroleum is a very broad and difficult field to test for.
What good is the handbook when you can't find reference to the Hall's plot in the waterflooding section. If I ever have to take this again, I will bring every single book. Borrow the whole library to the exam
adebam23, great comment. I struggled with how much to include in the GB: originally it had 500+ pages but this made it unusable. Do you think I should include Hall Plots? What else do you think should be in there that isn't?
Again, thanks for your thoughts. They are appreciated.
By the handbook, I meant the SPE 6 sections( 7 books) handbook and not the GB. NCEES said that they will change the structure of the exam so that you only use the handbook to study and not the numerous different books that people use before. Something as trival as the Hall plot for diagnosing water injection should be in the handbook. With that said, I managed to get the problem right because of my innate general engineering aptitude, and exam taking skills and not because of knowlegde of specific material. In my opinion the whole exam felt like that.
I thought PE really tested the minimum competency levels.I guess for me the PM session was a bit better, but the test didnt test minimum competency. It was more like a elimination test for a job I felt.
Aliph, could you give me an example of what you mean by competency levels? What subjects do you think belong on a min competency test? I've always wondered why well control doesn't dominate the test for this reason alone...
A petroleum engineer should know PVT, there was really no PVT questions A petroleum engineer should know decline curve analysis very well; there was only 2 decline curve analysis in the whole test A petroleum engineer is more of a subsurface engineer, a lot of surface questions (facilities) on the exam. A bright student with a very good understanding of general physical, chemistry, maths, and general engineering can score at least 20 questions out of the 80 questions right
Thanks adebam, I get it now. The subjects chosen were not specific enough to a working, practical petroleum engineer, but were more general to engineering. Thanks!
The exam was brutal. For me, the AM session seemed to have more 'pitfalls' than the PM session. Felt frustrated about 2 AM questions, one where the trick was units and another where it took too long to recognize the problem type.
If I didn't pass it this time, I realize now that the successful strategy will be increasing SPEED, especially on the problem types / subject matter that typically appears so that I can spend time on the new problems from the 'wild blue yonder'. The practice material seems to cover ~ 25% to 30% of the exam (with new twists and tricks on about half of those). I see now that you must get these as your 'base' and add from there from the random things they throw out.
A colleague who took the test last year and missed the cutoff by a single question told me that the 2016 exam felt more difficult than the 2015 exam. Maybe the traps and tricks are getting more frequent and clever?
Thank you for this informative comment. Here's what I get from it:
1) Everyone's experience on the AM or PM is different, so it must be what one knows. 2) Speed is everything. Time management is key to passing. 3) Even taking the exam once doesn't mean the second try will be any easier.
I think your colleague may have been thinking they would see the same exam the next year. But of course that won't happen, so one has to be ready for anything.
I really like your "base" concept of studying. It's what I call "knowing the limits of your knowledge" and accepting that, and intelligently guess on the remainder.
Checking back in, I passed (thank you God!) and thank you David, also Bing and several helpful / encouraging colleagues.
David, I agree with some of the other posts that this blog, the practice questions, and especially the guide book are fantastic resources. You're doing a good thing here and it's appreciated. This compliments Bing's stuff and the condensed format of the guide book is sooo helpful. I wasn't as familiar with it as I wanted to be prior to the test, I can imagine I'd still find things in there that I didn't see before.
Also, I feel that your feedback about time and resource management is helpful for those of us that might drag a pickup load of material into the test center or get hung up on long calculation problems. After finding your blog, I focused on the resources you described as most useful during the exam. And, shifted my study focus from slogging through calculation problems to scanning through practice material ranking problems based on how long I thought they'd take to do, working easier problems first while familiarizing myself with key resources (including the guide book).
Thanks for what you're doing here, it helped me focus and pass.
I would also have to say that this exam was awful. I would say the 70 some odd hours I spent prepared me for maybe 30-40% of the exam. I, like others, spent an incredible amount of time working bing's problems, working the 04 and 16 practice exams in actual 8 hour settings, and left that test assuming I failed miserably. Could not believe how many word problems there were and how vague and misleading some of the answer choices were. In most cases I could easily rule out 2 of the choices, but it was difficult to narrow down the remaining choices. All in all, if I have to take this exam again, I guess I'll have to make a much more concerted effort in tabbing references than I already did for this exam which I felt was quite thorough. Maybe I'll get lucky with a curve. The worst part about accepting a potential failing grade, is that I have to have this weigh on me for another 365 days..
1) I think it's common knowledge by now that working calculation problems won't help much on this exam.
2) Word problems are written to be tricky. I tried to replicate this on my 2016 practice exam, but it's very hard to do. I got a few emails griping about the lack of clarity though, so I'm getting closer :-).
3) How would you change my practice exam to help you practice? I'm writing a 2017 version right now, and could use whatever input you have (no exam problem specifics please, just what style, pace, and general subjects)?
4) How did the 2016 practice help for prep compared to the 2004 sample? Other than reading books, what else do you recommend? Knowing what you know now, would you invest your time the first time around if you could redo it?
5) I only have one critique on your comment: I had ALL references for the 2015 exam. Each was tabbed, highlighted, underlined, studied. But they didn't help me during the exam itself. If time is the key (and it is) then scanning references equals playing with fire. I knew answers that I tried to verify in my references, only to come up short. Those testers are smart, they know how to sop people from just looking up answers. But I know many people disagree with me here, so I'm interested in other opinions here.
Not the original poster here but a few comments. It's first monday back at work and still running the test over in my head. As an insurance in case I don't pass I thought I would try and document as many problems as I could remember and I got 55 of 80 I can remember for the most part. What good is this though? Are questions recycled year to year?
To your comments: 1. I think calculation problems are very helpful. In learning the CONCEPTS. Having a book full of example problems is little value in the exam but knowing the fundamental types of questions that are asked is invaluable. The key here is CONCEPTS. Several questions I realized after the fact I learned the method but didn't learn the fundamental concept and therefore missed the question. So point is practice problems and calculations are important, just don't rely on them too much. 2. Word problems were the worst, mainly because they are the most unpredictable. Some of these I think fall into the category of you either know it or you don't. Others you can find the answer in the handbooks if you try--but you don't know which are the ratholes you will waste time on and which are not. After the test I realized there were word problems that I tried to logic my way to an answer but I had the answer in a book in my possession. I think I became TOO conscious of not wanting to waste time flipping through books and that hurt me. If I have to take it again I will have the entire 7 series handbooks and figure that's what the questions should be coming from so if it's not in there I won't waste my time looking elsewhere.
PE 1, thank you for taking the time to comment. Really good stuff.
1. I absolutely, 100% agree on the calculation problems helping to learn the concepts. This is where the 2004 Sample Exam is pure gold, even though it is mostly calcs. My opinion: if you can do every problem on the 2004, you have reached the limit of where doing any more calculation problems will help and should instead practice word problems. What do you think?
2. Your second point is helpful to me. I think I had some unique issues on the 2015: I was an older engineer and thus "knew" a lot of answers I would have looked up had I taken it when younger. Second: I had to wait so long to take the exam I knew the TS & HS very well and thus again didn't need to look much up. So my experience, while useful for some people, is not good at all for others. A third point: the Textbook Series also is SPE and is used for a source text for the exam (this is not theory; it's fact). But at least they don't seem to focus on the "core" texts (TS #1, #2, #4, #12). I would lean to these over the Handbook, but of course the Handbook has a great index that the TS does not.
David- I would have to agree at this point that practice problems alone will not help you on this exam. I did however feel that working all those problems helped me understand the subject matter going into the exam, and that was true to an extent, but the overwhelming number of "trivia" questions left me quite frustrated. To answer your question about how you would change your practice exam, that's difficult to say honestly since there is just such a vast amount of resource material and difficult to project subject matter and how the questions/answers will be phrased. I scored an 82 on your practice exam so I felt pretty good about my ability to utilize the guidebook. However, in the actual exam I didn't find that I used the guidebook all that much especially for the word questions. Some subjects that might be beneficial to add to the GB would be OSHA regulations, geology subject matter, completions, and maybe more expansion on facilites/pumps/compressors etc as there were no design questions but rather more questions around differences in cost/advantages/disadvantages etc.. Hope that's not too specific.. All in all I'll probably need to compile a thorough summary type page of all my main references.. Thanks again for your help
Wow, sounds like many of us had similar thoughts about the exam! I thought the PM session was horrendous; might be because I was also getting tired, but I definitely thought it was more difficult and had more of those questions that were not specific to petroleum engineering, but general engineering. Like PE 1, I found that although I had studied your exams, gone through Bing's workbook, and put in the time, I missed the boat a bit on the 'concepts', meaning I learned how to do those problems, but didn't exactly understand the concept as a whole.
David, your guidebook was fantastic. It was my most used reference, and although I've had it several months, I almost wished I had read it cover to cover because I found an equation I needed in the morning during the afternoon session.
I did think there were a few unfair questions that did not require calculation and I couldn't find them in my references, or knew they wouldn't be there (maybe some suggestion to add to your helpful API Spec page would be some general Petroleum OSHA guidelines as well). Maybe if I had more experience or worked in a different role, these would have been easy, but I felt frustrated that I couldn't calculate anything, but had to either know it or have it in a book.
Like the FE, I left the exam having absolutely no idea how I did. Time to not worry about it for a couple months at least!
Thanks again for the guidebook, sample exams, and this blog. Without it, I definitely would not have been as prepared and would have spent much more time searching my references.
Makes me wonder if there will be a "Dammeyer" effect on these year's test with so many people using the guidebook he published. I was looking around the room prior to starting the test and saw the book on lots of people's desks.
Agree on your first point: I might understand how to do a specific problem but often even a small change is enough to throw me off on an exam unless I fully understand the entire concept(s). One way I try to deal with this is using T/F questions on the practice exam where each potential answer goes into a whole new area (even though it's not the solution itself).
The GB is most useful to those who read each page carefully (especially the fine print) and look up anything not fully understood. Most of the equations themselves are useless on this type of exam; it's the "concepts" the equations point to that is the real intent of it being there.
I used the GB more of a "knowledge boundary". If they are gonna ask me something outside of the GB realm (and they will) I just won't play that game and will rather focus on checking my work or making educated guesses. Time is the problem, and so just knowing when to say "no, it's outside of my scope" is a big time saver.
I think the "unfair" questions for one person often are crazy easy to another, but then flip it around, your easy questions are my nightmare! Look at how most people hated the PM, but others hated the AM. And I experienced so many cases of "wow, that's easy" or "that's unfair!" only to discover later it was a trick. So "easy" questions left me uneasy and I wasted a lot of time on them,checking.
And thank you for all your help cleaning up typos in the GB and practice exam. You are one of five or so people who have really helped me clean up typos and "hand-waving" in the GB. And anyone who has a copy pre-test, send yours back to me and I'll and I'll update it and send back to you. Just give me some warning so I can print one first.
I've been checking out this blog for the past several weeks and I'd have to say great job David for setting this up and also coming up with the GB and practice exams - they were long overdue. Bing's binder was/is good but I believe it really needs a makeover given the new exam format and specs.
I got your GB about 1 month before the test so I couldn't cover all the material cover to cover but it was still helpful with some of the calculation problems from a time saving standpoint. I'll save my recommendations for improvement for next time and focus on the issues at hand.
THE STRUCTURE OF PETROLEUM PE EXAM IS FLAWED:
I believe the Petroleum PE exam should be totally revamped. What we currently have is a test where you try and do your best in your primary discipline/area of specialization and then settle for Hail Marys on 70%+ of the questions in the other disciplines. Why can't Petroleum Eng. have a structure like Civil, Mechanical, Electrical Eng where the AM is a breadth session (general concepts & principles from all sub-disciplines) and have the PM session as the Depth session focusing on your chosen sub-discipline (Reservoir, D & C, Facilities & Production). That will be a better test of competency instead of candidates relying on luck and guesswork to put them over the top? The passing rate for all candidates (not just 1st timers) in 2015 was ~53% (per NCEES website). If that's a true indication of competency, then the industry is in trouble...or maybe not.
This should be given serious thought by SPE, NCEES and other stakeholders. I'm not going to go into exam questions specifics in honor of my candidate agreement but how do these exam questions preparers expect a 10+ year Reservoir Engineer to get answer some raw drilling engineering concepts or remember some codes without flipping through textbooks/references and hoping to find the answer. Like you said in one of your earlier posts, it became a battle of references! Guess what...most of us found out the answers are always never handy. It's easy to say don't waste your time on these word problems but what do you do when it's more than 505 of the exam??? I don't have an issue with the many conceptual (non-calculation) problems but they should give us a fair chance to be tested on our true competence and not just on the quality/number of reference materials brought to the exam, how good we can tab references or how fast we can search for these answers on questions we have no clue about. I hope we get lucky with our guess pool. Good luck guys.
Anon, you have lots of people who agree with you. The petroleum exam is simply unfair. I don't think there is even much agreement on what constitutes the "basics".
But don't let it get you down. First, I'm VERY skeptical gobs of resources helps as much as everyone seems to think. I've noticed people who pass aren't big resource fans. Second, I think taking the PE exam is worth it just to learn what you think should be the basics. I'm always amazed how petro PEs stand out from their peers (esp. in meetings) because they are so well-rounded; you can visibly see it and so can everyone else. So I just ignored the silly exam, focused on my own learning boundaries, and let the exam chips fall where they may. Even if you take it four times,the upside is that you will be the most well-rounded engineer ever.
And don't hesitate to send me your old GB for a new, updated one, pass or not. Just send me an email first so I can have one printed.
I survived the exam, but man! I feel pretty uneasy about the whole thing... I truly felt that last year's exam was much more fair than this exam. Boy did they change things up! Sooooo many esoteric questions, and I personally thought the calculation-based questions were leaning more towards Completions, which blew me outta the water :( Being a Petroleum Engineer by background, I can honestly say that the exam truly was not grounded in the fundamentals - just a bunch of trivia, in my humble opinion. The exam should really be geared around your Guidebook, which captures the basic fundamentals! I don't know, I'm also pretty bummed with the way the test was distributed by discipline. I only recall solving just a few Reservoir and Well Testing questions combined, but that's my bias, being an RE :/ Oh well, I let it all out on the table :) Hope I pass this sucker!
I have taken the test a couple times before. This was similar to 2015's test in difficulty-- since about 2014 they have started adding way more Facilities & MechE related questions (this is why the pass % decreases starting that year-- the test used to be easier for classical petroleum engineers disciplines). For most petroleum engineers (reservoir, drilling, production engineers) I would imagine some of these questions are next to impossible to answer correctly. This adds a certain amount of randomness to who will pass and fail this exam. I did the best I have ever done on this exam in my opinion. Will it be enough to pass? Maybe-- I would imagine the cut score will be 46 - 50 this year (this is based on my experience taking these exams). Also-- this is the first year the exam was decoupled from experience, so you had lots of fresh out of school former college students taking the exam-- there is no way to predict how this will effect the cut score. On the one hand I would imagine a higher sample size will lower the cut score needed to pass, but on the other I would imagine these former college students will do very well as lots of this information is still fresh in their minds from school. Your guide would have been more helpful if I had spent more time studying it (one guy sitting in front of me said it was extremely helpful). I was pretty good with my own notes and equation packets I have built up over the last few times I took this exam. I do think you are doing a great thing creating this blog as there really aren't many resources out there to study for this particular PE exam-- so any resources to help study are a good idea. Thanks for creating a place to discuss the exam as well!
A question: why do you think 2016 was your best year? Knowing the "style" of the exam and how to use resources on it, having a better idea regarding what is on it, getting better or more resources, or just having studied more?
A GB weakness is that it's very dense and you have to know it well to make it useful. I just had someone request I add CBL yet it already has it...some stuff is hard to find in the heat of an exam.
Hard to say... I studied about as much as I did in 2015 (~ 150 hours). I failed by 2-3 questions that year. I was a little less stressed this year which probably helped. But I am not sure if I passed or not, it really depends on how many of the random guess questions I got right I suppose (basically most of the facility related questions).
Again thanks for taking the time on this comment. Your experience is extremely valuable. I agree on the stress part; even stopping once/hr to close my eyes and breath slowly helped me out.
The exam was indeed very difficult, but I was not surprised with the amount of word/phrase questions, given that last year more than half of the exam was word/phrase questions and also the SPE 2014 (4th edition) Sample Exam was 60% word/phrase questions. Your 2016 sample exam also prepared me for the amount of word/phrase questions. There were at least 2-3 questions from your 2016 Sample Exam that were similar in topic in the actual exam this year. I haven't encountered those topics anywhere else during my 150+ hours of studying. The afternoon session was a lot more difficult than the morning session, and nothing was a direct simple problem, not even the simple mud mixing and well testing problems. Everything had some complications and needed more calculations than just the plug and chug. A lot of the problems were facilities/operations related. Those questions are very difficult to answer if you don't have the right experience or right reference material. I depended on my previous production/workover/facilities experience to answer many of those pump/compressor/OSHA MOC/gas emissions/pigging/chemical treatment questions. I am currently in a Reservoir role and my previous experience really helped a lot. I don't know how a frac or wireline engineer will be able to pass such a test, or even a petroleum engineer who has only worked in Reservoir.
All in all, your Guidebook and Practise Exam were really helpful. Thanks for putting those together. I would improve the Guidebook by including more theory especially on facilities/pumps/compressors/snubbing/gas emissions (ton/yr)/geology/depositional environments, etc.
Also one more thing to add... even though Bing advised against focusing on the SPE 2014 Sample Exam (4th edition - 100 problem sample exam), I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend that future exam takers focus on this sample exam!!! It's the most recent SPE sample exam and more applicable to the 2014+ exam editions. The 2004 sample exam is very outdated.
Everyone has a different view on practice exams; a lot of that is based upon their background. My thought on the 2014: having taken the 2015 exam, I find the 2014 Sample Exam to be even less applicable than the 2004! Why? The 2004, while calc heavy, is hard to finish in time and covers a lot of theory behind the calcs. And for me, time is the key issue.
I found the 2014 simple, but the real one extremely hard. I do agree that a person should know everything on the 2014 pre-exam. BUT just because one knows every single problem on the 2014 doesn't mean a thing; they might still badly fail the PE exam I took.
Agreed. The 2004 sample exam is still valuabe and important to master for the calculation problems. Your 2016 practise exam has also been helpfull, by the way. There were at least 2-3 questions in your 2016 practise exam that were similar in topic to questions in the actual exam that I haven't seen anywhere else before. I think the key is to practise as much as possible... and since SPE has the 2014 sample exam out there, it's worth mastering along with the other exams. I thought the 2014 sample exam was similar in difficulty to the 2016 actual exam.
Anon, thanks again! Very useful. I'm going to look over the 2014 again when I have some time.
Question: were there problems on the 2014 exam you found challenging? If so which ones? Because I'll be glad to put similar problems on my blog (like I do with the 2016 & 2004).
Here are a few good/challenging problems from the 2014 sample exam: 10, 11, 12, 17, 30 (good problem but all given answers are wrong and unrealistic .. most pressure relief valves I dealt with are less than 1" in diameter, and this problem should require a very very small relief valve due to the low pressure and low gas volumes), 44, 60, 61, 71 (not really challenging but good surface pump selection knowledge problem).
I would also include a few problems in regards to snubbing calculations and coiled tubing applications. And a lot more facilities questions. For some reason the number of facilities questions keeps increasing (rightfully so, maybe, due to tougher regulations on emissions and process safety?), but SPE does not have a clear competency matrix for facilities engineering. If they are going to include a lot of facilities questions in the PE exam then they need to develop a competency matrix for facilities so that everyone is aware what SPE expects in terms of competency in this petroleum sub-discipline.
Yes it is. All the exams - 2004, 2009 and 2014 are from SPE. There are no NCEES practice exams for Petroleum so it really makes no difference what the SPE exam is called. My only issue with the 2014 exam is that it's riddled with errors and wrong answer keys for some of the calculation problems. SPE can do better!
Folks there is just no other way to prepare for the trivia/conceptual/word problems other than on the job experience. I took different references to the exam and flipped to the chapters and still had no clue what the answers to these problems were! Like David said, these guys won't ask questions that you can easily flip pages and find answers. Even the ones you can find the answers in your book, it's gonna take you a while to get there. It's really tough guys...at least with the 2004 exam, you get to practise solid calculation problems and then hope for the best with the conceptual problems on the exam...
That is true about the question papers. I just thought I will mention it. And like you said, there is no easy way to get the word problems right, unless you have a good working experience in every Petro Engg areas.
I do have one comment: even though the word problems are very confusing and difficult to look up, I think they are generally "fair". By this, I mean if one has reviewed the basics and have a general understanding of them, a reasonable answer can be obtained without looking anything up. However, I do think the language is designed to be tricky, and that's where one might consider it unfair, especially if they are not strong on English. Personally I was most concerned on subject I knew well for this reason; overconfidence kills. I was far more careful on subjects I was weak on.
I think 2 problems each half exam (5%, or 4 problems total) are "out there", and deliberately meant to be too hard or too long for 90% of engineers. And I think it absolutely critical to recognize these problems ASAP and skip them.
Said another way: the very best engineers sink their teeth into a challenging problem and won't let it go until they crush it. This otherwise admirable trait hurts on the exam. Many who don't pass win the battles, only to lose the war.
I thought the PM section was much harder; there were some esoteric facilities questions, and more challenging drilling and reservoir questions than there were on the AM. There were a few codes/standards questions that you had to guess on if you didn't have the references in your library. The GB was my most used reference. Thanks David for writing it and for your recommendation to buy the Hyne dictionary. It was my second most used reference and helped me get the correct answer on five or more word problems. I got it from amazon prime a day before the exam and I was so glad I did.
Thanks George. I had the exact reaction you had on the dictionary. Note the Dictionary for the Oil and Gas Industry, 2nd edition, by UOT Austin is also OK (although not quite as complete). For example, I looked up "shirttail" in both, Hyde mentions the shirttail packer, while UOT does not. But the UOT is more compact and better format IMO, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it instead if I already had it.
Let me correct that prior comment: I've been looking through the UOT dictionary and found many lapses. The last one: no "cut point" (solid removal) which is crazy. Exactly the kind of question for the PE exam. I definitely would not use the UOT, stick with Hyne.
I'm a 2nd-timer from TX...we took the test on Oct. 30th last year and got the results back on Dec. 11th (6 weeks). Where did you get the 16th date from?
I had read on the NCEES website somewhere that the results are expected to be released to the State Boards by Dec 16th...sounds like if we're lucky, might be a bit sooner.
What was your take on this year's exam vs last year's exam? I'm curious on how I should adapt my studying if I didn't pass. Was the exam substantially different year to year?
If you are using a GB, send yours in for the latest for free.
Do and redo the 2004 Sample Exam and 2015, 2016 Practice Exams until you can do them in your sleep. If you can complete those exams in the proper time, I will be shocked you can't pass.
Respect. Most people don't have the balls to even try. You did, and it's a valuable experience, regardless. Don't let it get to you, life goes on.
If you plan to retake, write down everything you think would help for next exam today, because you will quickly forget. Trust me on this one.
If you are going to retake using the GB, send yours in for the latest for free. Make sure you commit to whatever resources right now, so you can spend time with them right out of the gate.
Mostly, do (and redo) the 2004 Sample Exam and 2016, 2017 Practice Exams. If you can complete those exams in the proper time, I will be shocked you can't pass next time.
Thanks David! I'll try even harder next year. Those conceptual/theoretical questions got me really bad. I also struggle with timed exams as I always never seem to get through all the questions and wind up guessing on a bunch at the end. Some of these I believe I can answer if I had a little more time. I guess I just have to practise harder. Any additional tips from you and those that passed will be appreciated. Any chance some more conceptual nuggets are included in your GB?
The GB covers some of those questions in the sidebars, but you really have to "know" the fine print before the exam, not look them up during. The new GB also has 4 extra pages to help counter this issue.
See the discussion with Jason and I above on the different methods of looking up/solving these types of problems. I'm a slow worker, and thus tried to "know" most of them, not look them up, but Jason used the Handbook for them with success. Note the 2016-17 practice exams have many of these style of questions that the 2004 sample exam does not.
Reporting from Oklahoma ( I took the exam in TX), I passed. In my opionion, the structure of the exam was more like the 100 sample questions that have floating around for a while now (Study Guide for the SPE Petroleum Engineering Certification Examination). The funny thing was that Mr Bing said that the sample was a joke because over 50% of the questions were not calculations. It turned out the real exam was like that. But it would not hurt to know the classic calculation problems. In all honesty I feel the only reason I passed if because of my indepth knowledge of reservoir engineering, and my test taking abilities. The word problems from the drilling, operations and facilities are a toss up. But with a lot of studying, those word problems can be doable.
Congrats! Well done. Curious: besides the Cert Exam and Bing's class, what practice exams and resources do you most recommend? What did you study from? I think the reason people dislike the SPE Cert Exam is because it's so easy, and the real exam is so hard (that's what I thought in 2015 and agreed with Bing).
I took Mr Bings advice. I knew almost every problem in his book and read the drilling book pretty well. I then I skimmed through the 6 series handbook. I first took the 2004 sample exam I scored 43. Then I studied the problems I got wrong very hard the were mainly the classic calculations problems like acrhies, PVT, tubing stretching, balance cement plugging. Then I took your sample exam and I scored 47. I noticed that I got the same type of problems wrong again. And I studied these problems even harder. A week before the exam looked at the 100 sample questions. I stopped mid way because I felt it wasn't representive and the some of the calc problems were too easy. I have been a reservoir engineer for 10 years. My experience was the the 2016 didn't have enough of the easy type reservoir engineering problems and a lot more difficult problems which I was able to tackle pretty well because of my experience. If I am too take this test again, I would bring all my reference material, and study in depth another discipline apart from reservoir engineering. In 2016, there was some on production engineering which were not in your guide or Mr Bings. And in all honesty, those problems were standard production engineering problems.
Wow, that's really informative. Thank you. Since you were able to get 60% on my exam, I would have bet good money you would pass.
Question: with so much reference material, wouldn't you be worried hunting through it would create time issues? I can't learn that much stuff and end up flipping pages.
Maybe I'm just too slow. But I did just talk to a guy who used only the GB and a few basic books during the exam and passed, so both ways can work I guess. I think some engineers are just faster than others and I'm in the "slow" camp. But it's important for each engineer to figure out how fast he can use resources and decide based on that. What do you think?
That was my plan too, to flip as little page as possible. But the facilities questions and drilling were a lot different than I expected... I will definitely bring the petroleum dictionary, that is probably the 2nd most important reference. But in the end I had a P and I am so happy about it
Makes sense. Your comment is fascinating, because while you would make lots of changes...you PASSED! We focus on what is missed or not known...but the results show you knew a lot of stuff on the exam half the other engineers didn't know. Good job and congratulations!
Reporting from Texas - I passed! :) But I say this after several failures taking the exam, but deciding to not give up. Trust me it is soooooo worth it in the end! The GB was my most used reference and all I have to say is that this is the first time I had it with me on the exam and I actually passed! Thank you David for this blog, the GB, and the sample exams - invaluable!
To anyone who did not pass this year - don't give up - take it from someone who thought they would never pass the exam - but yesterday was my day!
Folks who didn't pass this year should read this comment! It's easy to not pass this exam on the first or second run, and it's no big deal.
Many who don't pass the first time may actually know most of the material. I know this because they often find mistakes on my practice exam and GB (hat tip: V!). Valerie also easily passed the Cert exam, first try, so she clearly knows her stuff. It's very easy to miss a few tricky problems on this exam by chance. Never let not passing this exam bother you at all. Just gear up and hit it again!
Hey David, I purchased your PE guidebook through Amazon. But it was through the seller Tsalteshi. Is that the right way to purchase your GB? Please advise. Thanks.
I placed the order this morning. I am planning to take the exam this year. Just to confirm, is there any change made in the GB or anything that I need to notice particularly? Thanks.
Nope, you are good to go. Your book (most recent printing) is already in the mail; it should arrive this weekend or Monday at the latest. A letter with my email is included so don't hesitate to send me any questions directly as well. Most of all make sure you read the resource page on this blog and get geared up early, so you can get familiar with your chosen resources long before you take your practice exams.
Really appreciate the comments! And I am very grateful that you create this communication channel to get everybody together. Petroleum is definitely a minority in the PE family. But this blog makes it more approachable.
You are correct. The concepts won't change, but the different testing question types and how you practice handling your time managing look ups, etc would be different. That's what I was referencing.
With the standard A-D selection, the resources and scratch paper remaining the same, I'm not sure where the change would be. Better, more visible graphs? Not being able to put a straight edge on the computer? But that's all trivial. In fact, my practice exams are all digital too. Do you see anything amiss with my thoughts? I haven't really given it much care, honestly.
Once the test goes to computer based format, not all the questions will be multiple choice (A-D). Some will be matching, fill in the blank, pick a point, etc. The FE exam has utilized some of these types of questions.
No; I just use them on my phone with scratch paper. You won't want to bring them to the exam anyway. Put some reminders on the ones you have trouble with in the margins of your primary resource under that subject.
Regarding question #38 on the 2016 AM exam, why is the 50/50 risk not applied to the solution? We are asked: within how many days should the fishing expert be certain he can get the fish before one should assume the fishing job will be cost effective. On the GB, a 0.5 factor is used, but in the practice exam, the 0.5 factor is not used. If the solution is correct, in what context would one take the 0.5 factor into consideration?
I just saw the solution on the main page today--thank you. I initially asked because the answer key (on the 2016 AM exam) indicates that the answer is (B) 9.8 days (not 5, as in the GB example). But I totally understand it otherwise. Thanks again.
That's probably the case. I just checked again and it is, in fact, indicating that the correct answer is 9.8 days (Data given is same as in GB). There isn't even an option for 5 days, i.e. A) 8.2, B) 9.8, C) 10.7, and D) 12.3.
The GB says it is the Third printing (June 2017).
In any case, it's no big deal. I'm just glad I'm able to clarify with you through this medium. Many thanks.
Thank you. You should have been "pushed" the option of downloading a new Kindle update for the book when you updated it. Regardless, you should be able to remove the book from your device and then "push" it back to the device and it should be updated. Sorry about that!
Hey mdavid, I really appreciate your work creating the guidebook, practice exams, and this blog. I'm taking the exam for the first time on Friday. Are the problems on your practice exams representative of the difficulty and length of the problems on the actual exam? I feel like none of your problems have been excessively difficult (not complaining), but a couple of the problems on the 2014 SPE exam have made me want to tear my hair out. What kind should I be prepared for?
Ease of the exam depends on what you find difficult. As I've said here before, I found the 2004 brutal, the 2014 so easy to be a joke, and my exams to be about right. It all depends on what you know and what style you find difficult.
As far as what the real exam is, that changes year to year. My exams are written to learn the GB and experience the pace and resources needed, so if you cheat and just use the GB to find the answer rather than learn the material it will often seem very easy. In short, YMMV, mostly depending on your experience and style.
That's fair. Your practice exams really have helped me learn the GB. I actually found 2014 to be easier than 2004.. I guess my goal today is to figure out what specific questions made me feel that way and study those
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deleteadebam23, you have some great comments; could you please repost without the problem specifics?
DeleteAliph, you have some great comments; could you please repost without the problem specifics?
DeleteI hate this test. It's not a test of what your knowledges but how well you can take the test and avoid the pit fall. It would set you up with distraction answers, and common mistake as answers. Then it would give you a graph and just looking at answer, Could it really be that simple ??
ReplyDeleteI think this is just set up to mess with your head. Did i mention I hate this test? Is this something i want to take again ? I am not sure. I think it just looks good on the resume, so i can say i'm a PE. I'm not sure if i pass or not, but with all the information going in. You can't help it but fall into the pit. They will get you. This is what makes it hard.
Great comment Anon.
DeleteI think the test does challenge knowledge, but it's often hard to figure out what is being asked for.
I like your comment "Could it really be that simple?" I experience this a lot, and often later realized that yes, it really wasn't that simple...and many other, realized I had wasted a whole minute looking at it for no reason!
But there are some good reasons to take the PE Exam:
1) It proves to any future employer you are a sharp individual. I would seriously look at it when hiring.
2) It proves you are well rounded in petroleum; many people specialize so deeply they have a hard time working in drilling teams anymore.
3) It forces you to build a nice library.
4) In my state, I can stamp anything: mechanical, civil, etc. So if you decide to move into a different field, you already have the stamp.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnon & payab, you both have some great comments; could you please repost without the problem specifics?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, you have a lot of good stuff in that comment but are getting too close to specifics. Could you repost without those specifics? Thanks!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAliph, another good comment, but please no specifics.
DeleteThe test was difficult in my opinion since it was not classical petroleum engineering except handful of questions.
ReplyDeleteI think there were error in one question morning and one afternoon. Did any one notice a possible error or I did a mistake?
Great comment Moj.
DeleteI think the test deliberately tries to avoid "classical petroleum engineering" and instead focuses on familiarity with the subject.
I strongly doubt there are any errors in the questions, because they would have been rooted out. When something seems amiss, it's often a trick that if one had had time to really dig in, it makes sense.
Yeap exactly. You couldn't have said it better. I felt that there were only a very very few tough calculations problem. The hideous vapor question was certainly one. ( but I might be wrong)
DeleteHi. I will only speak in non specific terms about the test. (Please no problem specifics). I did want to thank you for publishing and making available your guidebook. It was my most used reference. I was surprised by how little I used any of my other references. I opened them often but maybe only once did I ever find anything in them that actually helped to answer the questions. Maybe they are moving away from just knowing "how to find stuff" like parameters out of Halliburton red book. Most of these were all given. I thought the test was well designed. It definitely tested your ability to know how to think and solve a problem. That said nothing was straight of out a book or an example problem. All variations of problems so you couldn't plug and chug. There were a few problems I thought were either errors or missing one piece of data needed to solve. Would have like to known the problem to report to NCEES but can't take any info out obviously. Now comes the waiting.
ReplyDeleteWow, what I great comment. I agree with pretty much everything.
DeleteI was utterly shocked at how little my resources helped. The testers certainly prevent it from become a "battle of references". They also make a point to make sure we don't need the Redbook or any specific data or chart. Sometimes I looked something up in a hurry only to realize later I didn't need to...had I been smart enough to see it.
The only thing I might take exception with: I strongly doubt there are any errors on the exam. I bet a lot of those problems are just tricks, and when I saw it, was like, that's low! I just barely spotted the trick several times, swearing it was a test error a moment before I saw the trick.
I didn't use a single reference for a calculation problem except for the guide book; I did however use at least 6 different references (primarily the SPE handbook series & applied drilling engineering)to answer multiple word problems.
DeleteWhat cut-off number do you think will result in 50% pass rate?
ReplyDeleteLast year seems cut-off was 45 with ~ 50% pass rate.
Anyone had test last year? Was it similar to last year? Easier or more difficult?
The exam first like the first time I took the sample exam. Apart from improving my speed, the practice exam didn't help at all
Deleteadebam23, excellent comment. But when you say "sample exam" do you mean 2004 Sample Exam? For "practice exam" do you mean 2016 Practice Exam?
DeleteIf I understand you: the practice problems didn't help every much because they were not close enough to the test's problems?
Thanks for commenting, looking forward to your answer!
YES.
DeleteI meant the 2004 sample exam. There were way more calculation problems and classic problems that I have thoroughly mastered in the 2004 sample exam.
With that said there were still some thorough questions that you can only get if u specialized in a field and know what reference to look up. With that said, I feel that the SPE handbook wasn't too helpful.
With that said, I feel that the SPE handbook wasn't too helpful.
DeleteYep, me too. In fact, I found it to actually hurt me, a time sink.
David, this is one area where I disagree with you. I answered at least 7 or 8 word problems with the help of the SPE handbook series (although I felt at best 70% on any answer)...
DeleteJason, I've heard that quite a bit, so I think you are correct and thus I'm revising my opinion here.
DeleteI think my problem was that I had to wait so long to take the exam I just knew a lot of those questions without looking them up. I have my weak areas, and the GB has a lot of that stuff, but the areas I know a lot about I didn't think to include that material (and of course didn't need to look them up for on the exam) so it just remained below my radar. Your 7-8 questions seems about right.
But I also think that if the average person has to look up too many problems they could get into serious time issues. I would. Hey, not all of us old guys are that fast anymore :-).
Hey guys just remember the blog rule of no discussion of specific problems! General topics only!
ReplyDeleteThanks David. Sorry, I forgot the specifics part about the discussion. In my opinion the exam was hard. Not that it was with harder classical problems, it was more tricky or vague unclear and really some non petroleum. Your guide book helped a lot. Wish I would have got it earlier. Moj, I thought there was a mistake in one of the problems in PM session.
ReplyDeleteAliph, I think your assessment is very accurate.
DeleteTricky? YES.
Vague? YES.
Unclear? YES.
Lots of petroleum "grey area" questions? YES.
One of the problems with the GB is that it is very dense, and you have to know each page very well (especially all the tiny commnets!) to make it sing. So when a question comes up, you can flip to the right page right away. So it takes several months of use to make it very useful.
It was way more words problems than I expected. I find the morning session was a bit easier. The afternoon was a nightmare. Yes were trying to move away from the plug and chuck questions. But what is engineering with no calculations... arts?
ReplyDeleteAnd Mr Dammeyer what is your take on the exam
adebem23, when I took it in 2015 I found the PM way harder too. But many others felt the opposite. So it's probably just subject selection (each of us has our strengths) or perhaps I was just really, really tired.
DeleteI love the "arts" comment! It's a lot of the reason I wrote my GB and practice exam was to try and give people a way to practice this style of exam, which is quite different than any other I've seen. I'm an ME, and while I've never taken it, I can guarantee the ME exam is far "normal" than this one! Petroleum is a very broad and difficult field to test for.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteAfternoon was horrible!
Yep!
DeleteWhat good is the handbook when you can't find reference to the Hall's plot in the waterflooding section. If I ever have to take this again, I will bring every single book. Borrow the whole library to the exam
ReplyDeleteadebam23, great comment. I struggled with how much to include in the GB: originally it had 500+ pages but this made it unusable. Do you think I should include Hall Plots? What else do you think should be in there that isn't?
DeleteAgain, thanks for your thoughts. They are appreciated.
By the handbook, I meant the SPE 6 sections( 7 books) handbook and not the GB. NCEES said that they will change the structure of the exam so that you only use the handbook to study and not the numerous different books that people use before. Something as trival as the Hall plot for diagnosing water injection should be in the handbook.
DeleteWith that said, I managed to get the problem right because of my innate general engineering aptitude, and exam taking skills and not because of knowlegde of specific material. In my opinion the whole exam felt like that.
I thought PE really tested the minimum competency levels.I guess for me the PM session was a bit better, but the test didnt test minimum competency. It was more like a elimination test for a job I felt.
ReplyDeleteAliph, could you give me an example of what you mean by competency levels? What subjects do you think belong on a min competency test? I've always wondered why well control doesn't dominate the test for this reason alone...
DeleteA petroleum engineer should know PVT, there was really no PVT questions
DeleteA petroleum engineer should know decline curve analysis very well; there was only 2 decline curve analysis in the whole test
A petroleum engineer is more of a subsurface engineer, a lot of surface questions (facilities) on the exam.
A bright student with a very good understanding of general physical, chemistry, maths, and general engineering can score at least 20 questions out of the 80 questions right
Thanks adebam, I get it now. The subjects chosen were not specific enough to a working, practical petroleum engineer, but were more general to engineering. Thanks!
DeleteThe exam was brutal. For me, the AM session seemed to have more 'pitfalls' than the PM session. Felt frustrated about 2 AM questions, one where the trick was units and another where it took too long to recognize the problem type.
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't pass it this time, I realize now that the successful strategy will be increasing SPEED, especially on the problem types / subject matter that typically appears so that I can spend time on the new problems from the 'wild blue yonder'. The practice material seems to cover ~ 25% to 30% of the exam (with new twists and tricks on about half of those). I see now that you must get these as your 'base' and add from there from the random things they throw out.
A colleague who took the test last year and missed the cutoff by a single question told me that the 2016 exam felt more difficult than the 2015 exam. Maybe the traps and tricks are getting more frequent and clever?
Thank you for this informative comment. Here's what I get from it:
Delete1) Everyone's experience on the AM or PM is different, so it must be what one knows.
2) Speed is everything. Time management is key to passing.
3) Even taking the exam once doesn't mean the second try will be any easier.
I think your colleague may have been thinking they would see the same exam the next year. But of course that won't happen, so one has to be ready for anything.
I really like your "base" concept of studying. It's what I call "knowing the limits of your knowledge" and accepting that, and intelligently guess on the remainder.
Checking back in, I passed (thank you God!) and thank you David, also Bing and several helpful / encouraging colleagues.
DeleteDavid, I agree with some of the other posts that this blog, the practice questions, and especially the guide book are fantastic resources. You're doing a good thing here and it's appreciated. This compliments Bing's stuff and the condensed format of the guide book is sooo helpful. I wasn't as familiar with it as I wanted to be prior to the test, I can imagine I'd still find things in there that I didn't see before.
Also, I feel that your feedback about time and resource management is helpful for those of us that might drag a pickup load of material into the test center or get hung up on long calculation problems. After finding your blog, I focused on the resources you described as most useful during the exam. And, shifted my study focus from slogging through calculation problems to scanning through practice material ranking problems based on how long I thought they'd take to do, working easier problems first while familiarizing myself with key resources (including the guide book).
Thanks for what you're doing here, it helped me focus and pass.
I would also have to say that this exam was awful. I would say the 70 some odd hours I spent prepared me for maybe 30-40% of the exam. I, like others, spent an incredible amount of time working bing's problems, working the 04 and 16 practice exams in actual 8 hour settings, and left that test assuming I failed miserably. Could not believe how many word problems there were and how vague and misleading some of the answer choices were. In most cases I could easily rule out 2 of the choices, but it was difficult to narrow down the remaining choices. All in all, if I have to take this exam again, I guess I'll have to make a much more concerted effort in tabbing references than I already did for this exam which I felt was quite thorough. Maybe I'll get lucky with a curve. The worst part about accepting a potential failing grade, is that I have to have this weigh on me for another 365 days..
ReplyDeleteAnother great comment. My thoughts:
Delete1) I think it's common knowledge by now that working calculation problems won't help much on this exam.
2) Word problems are written to be tricky. I tried to replicate this on my 2016 practice exam, but it's very hard to do. I got a few emails griping about the lack of clarity though, so I'm getting closer :-).
3) How would you change my practice exam to help you practice? I'm writing a 2017 version right now, and could use whatever input you have (no exam problem specifics please, just what style, pace, and general subjects)?
4) How did the 2016 practice help for prep compared to the 2004 sample? Other than reading books, what else do you recommend? Knowing what you know now, would you invest your time the first time around if you could redo it?
5) I only have one critique on your comment: I had ALL references for the 2015 exam. Each was tabbed, highlighted, underlined, studied. But they didn't help me during the exam itself. If time is the key (and it is) then scanning references equals playing with fire. I knew answers that I tried to verify in my references, only to come up short. Those testers are smart, they know how to sop people from just looking up answers. But I know many people disagree with me here, so I'm interested in other opinions here.
Not the original poster here but a few comments. It's first monday back at work and still running the test over in my head. As an insurance in case I don't pass I thought I would try and document as many problems as I could remember and I got 55 of 80 I can remember for the most part. What good is this though? Are questions recycled year to year?
DeleteTo your comments:
1. I think calculation problems are very helpful. In learning the CONCEPTS. Having a book full of example problems is little value in the exam but knowing the fundamental types of questions that are asked is invaluable. The key here is CONCEPTS. Several questions I realized after the fact I learned the method but didn't learn the fundamental concept and therefore missed the question. So point is practice problems and calculations are important, just don't rely on them too much.
2. Word problems were the worst, mainly because they are the most unpredictable. Some of these I think fall into the category of you either know it or you don't. Others you can find the answer in the handbooks if you try--but you don't know which are the ratholes you will waste time on and which are not. After the test I realized there were word problems that I tried to logic my way to an answer but I had the answer in a book in my possession. I think I became TOO conscious of not wanting to waste time flipping through books and that hurt me. If I have to take it again I will have the entire 7 series handbooks and figure that's what the questions should be coming from so if it's not in there I won't waste my time looking elsewhere.
PE 1, thank you for taking the time to comment. Really good stuff.
Delete1. I absolutely, 100% agree on the calculation problems helping to learn the concepts. This is where the 2004 Sample Exam is pure gold, even though it is mostly calcs. My opinion: if you can do every problem on the 2004, you have reached the limit of where doing any more calculation problems will help and should instead practice word problems. What do you think?
2. Your second point is helpful to me. I think I had some unique issues on the 2015: I was an older engineer and thus "knew" a lot of answers I would have looked up had I taken it when younger. Second: I had to wait so long to take the exam I knew the TS & HS very well and thus again didn't need to look much up. So my experience, while useful for some people, is not good at all for others. A third point: the Textbook Series also is SPE and is used for a source text for the exam (this is not theory; it's fact). But at least they don't seem to focus on the "core" texts (TS #1, #2, #4, #12). I would lean to these over the Handbook, but of course the Handbook has a great index that the TS does not.
Typo above: I mean they "do" focus on the core texts.
DeleteDavid- I would have to agree at this point that practice problems alone will not help you on this exam. I did however feel that working all those problems helped me understand the subject matter going into the exam, and that was true to an extent, but the overwhelming number of "trivia" questions left me quite frustrated. To answer your question about how you would change your practice exam, that's difficult to say honestly since there is just such a vast amount of resource material and difficult to project subject matter and how the questions/answers will be phrased. I scored an 82 on your practice exam so I felt pretty good about my ability to utilize the guidebook. However, in the actual exam I didn't find that I used the guidebook all that much especially for the word questions. Some subjects that might be beneficial to add to the GB would be OSHA regulations, geology subject matter, completions, and maybe more expansion on facilites/pumps/compressors etc as there were no design questions but rather more questions around differences in cost/advantages/disadvantages etc.. Hope that's not too specific.. All in all I'll probably need to compile a thorough summary type page of all my main references.. Thanks again for your help
DeleteWow, sounds like many of us had similar thoughts about the exam! I thought the PM session was horrendous; might be because I was also getting tired, but I definitely thought it was more difficult and had more of those questions that were not specific to petroleum engineering, but general engineering. Like PE 1, I found that although I had studied your exams, gone through Bing's workbook, and put in the time, I missed the boat a bit on the 'concepts', meaning I learned how to do those problems, but didn't exactly understand the concept as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDavid, your guidebook was fantastic. It was my most used reference, and although I've had it several months, I almost wished I had read it cover to cover because I found an equation I needed in the morning during the afternoon session.
I did think there were a few unfair questions that did not require calculation and I couldn't find them in my references, or knew they wouldn't be there (maybe some suggestion to add to your helpful API Spec page would be some general Petroleum OSHA guidelines as well). Maybe if I had more experience or worked in a different role, these would have been easy, but I felt frustrated that I couldn't calculate anything, but had to either know it or have it in a book.
Like the FE, I left the exam having absolutely no idea how I did. Time to not worry about it for a couple months at least!
Thanks again for the guidebook, sample exams, and this blog. Without it, I definitely would not have been as prepared and would have spent much more time searching my references.
Makes me wonder if there will be a "Dammeyer" effect on these year's test with so many people using the guidebook he published. I was looking around the room prior to starting the test and saw the book on lots of people's desks.
DeleteVitoria, very helpful comments (as usual!).
DeleteAgree on your first point: I might understand how to do a specific problem but often even a small change is enough to throw me off on an exam unless I fully understand the entire concept(s). One way I try to deal with this is using T/F questions on the practice exam where each potential answer goes into a whole new area (even though it's not the solution itself).
The GB is most useful to those who read each page carefully (especially the fine print) and look up anything not fully understood. Most of the equations themselves are useless on this type of exam; it's the "concepts" the equations point to that is the real intent of it being there.
I used the GB more of a "knowledge boundary". If they are gonna ask me something outside of the GB realm (and they will) I just won't play that game and will rather focus on checking my work or making educated guesses. Time is the problem, and so just knowing when to say "no, it's outside of my scope" is a big time saver.
I think the "unfair" questions for one person often are crazy easy to another, but then flip it around, your easy questions are my nightmare! Look at how most people hated the PM, but others hated the AM. And I experienced so many cases of "wow, that's easy" or "that's unfair!" only to discover later it was a trick. So "easy" questions left me uneasy and I wasted a lot of time on them,checking.
And thank you for all your help cleaning up typos in the GB and practice exam. You are one of five or so people who have really helped me clean up typos and "hand-waving" in the GB. And anyone who has a copy pre-test, send yours back to me and I'll and I'll update it and send back to you. Just give me some warning so I can print one first.
I've been checking out this blog for the past several weeks and I'd have to say great job David for setting this up and also coming up with the GB and practice exams - they were long overdue. Bing's binder was/is good but I believe it really needs a makeover given the new exam format and specs.
ReplyDeleteI got your GB about 1 month before the test so I couldn't cover all the material cover to cover but it was still helpful with some of the calculation problems from a time saving standpoint. I'll save my recommendations for improvement for next time and focus on the issues at hand.
THE STRUCTURE OF PETROLEUM PE EXAM IS FLAWED:
I believe the Petroleum PE exam should be totally revamped. What we currently have is a test where you try and do your best in your primary discipline/area of specialization and then settle for Hail Marys on 70%+ of the questions in the other disciplines. Why can't Petroleum Eng. have a structure like Civil, Mechanical, Electrical Eng where the AM is a breadth session (general concepts & principles from all sub-disciplines) and have the PM session as the Depth session focusing on your chosen sub-discipline (Reservoir, D & C, Facilities & Production). That will be a better test of competency instead of candidates relying on luck and guesswork to put them over the top? The passing rate for all candidates (not just 1st timers) in 2015 was ~53% (per NCEES website). If that's a true indication of competency, then the industry is in trouble...or maybe not.
This should be given serious thought by SPE, NCEES and other stakeholders. I'm not going to go into exam questions specifics in honor of my candidate agreement but how do these exam questions preparers expect a 10+ year Reservoir Engineer to get answer some raw drilling engineering concepts or remember some codes without flipping through textbooks/references and hoping to find the answer. Like you said in one of your earlier posts, it became a battle of references! Guess what...most of us found out the answers are always never handy. It's easy to say don't waste your time on these word problems but what do you do when it's more than 505 of the exam??? I don't have an issue with the many conceptual (non-calculation) problems but they should give us a fair chance to be tested on our true competence and not just on the quality/number of reference materials brought to the exam, how good we can tab references or how fast we can search for these answers on questions we have no clue about. I hope we get lucky with our guess pool. Good luck guys.
Anon, you have lots of people who agree with you. The petroleum exam is simply unfair. I don't think there is even much agreement on what constitutes the "basics".
DeleteBut don't let it get you down. First, I'm VERY skeptical gobs of resources helps as much as everyone seems to think. I've noticed people who pass aren't big resource fans. Second, I think taking the PE exam is worth it just to learn what you think should be the basics. I'm always amazed how petro PEs stand out from their peers (esp. in meetings) because they are so well-rounded; you can visibly see it and so can everyone else. So I just ignored the silly exam, focused on my own learning boundaries, and let the exam chips fall where they may. Even if you take it four times,the upside is that you will be the most well-rounded engineer ever.
And don't hesitate to send me your old GB for a new, updated one, pass or not. Just send me an email first so I can have one printed.
I survived the exam, but man! I feel pretty uneasy about the whole thing... I truly felt that last year's exam was much more fair than this exam. Boy did they change things up!
ReplyDeleteSooooo many esoteric questions, and I personally thought the calculation-based questions were leaning more towards Completions, which blew me outta the water :(
Being a Petroleum Engineer by background, I can honestly say that the exam truly was not grounded in the fundamentals - just a bunch of trivia, in my humble opinion.
The exam should really be geared around your Guidebook, which captures the basic fundamentals!
I don't know, I'm also pretty bummed with the way the test was distributed by discipline. I only recall solving just a few Reservoir and Well Testing questions combined, but that's my bias, being an RE :/
Oh well, I let it all out on the table :) Hope I pass this sucker!
Thanks for this comment. I'm agreeing with your "uneasy" line: anyone who doesn't feel uneasy at the end of this exam is a genius or a fool!
DeleteI do think a GB weakness is that it lacks a lot of theoretical basics. I'll probably add some for next year.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have taken the test a couple times before. This was similar to 2015's test in difficulty-- since about 2014 they have started adding way more Facilities & MechE related questions (this is why the pass % decreases starting that year-- the test used to be easier for classical petroleum engineers disciplines).
ReplyDeleteFor most petroleum engineers (reservoir, drilling, production engineers) I would imagine some of these questions are next to impossible to answer correctly. This adds a certain amount of randomness to who will pass and fail this exam.
I did the best I have ever done on this exam in my opinion. Will it be enough to pass? Maybe-- I would imagine the cut score will be 46 - 50 this year (this is based on my experience taking these exams). Also-- this is the first year the exam was decoupled from experience, so you had lots of fresh out of school former college students taking the exam-- there is no way to predict how this will effect the cut score. On the one hand I would imagine a higher sample size will lower the cut score needed to pass, but on the other I would imagine these former college students will do very well as lots of this information is still fresh in their minds from school.
Your guide would have been more helpful if I had spent more time studying it (one guy sitting in front of me said it was extremely helpful). I was pretty good with my own notes and equation packets I have built up over the last few times I took this exam. I do think you are doing a great thing creating this blog as there really aren't many resources out there to study for this particular PE exam-- so any resources to help study are a good idea. Thanks for creating a place to discuss the exam as well!
Great comment!
DeleteA question: why do you think 2016 was your best year? Knowing the "style" of the exam and how to use resources on it, having a better idea regarding what is on it, getting better or more resources, or just having studied more?
A GB weakness is that it's very dense and you have to know it well to make it useful. I just had someone request I add CBL yet it already has it...some stuff is hard to find in the heat of an exam.
Hard to say... I studied about as much as I did in 2015 (~ 150 hours). I failed by 2-3 questions that year. I was a little less stressed this year which probably helped. But I am not sure if I passed or not, it really depends on how many of the random guess questions I got right I suppose (basically most of the facility related questions).
DeleteAgain thanks for taking the time on this comment. Your experience is extremely valuable. I agree on the stress part; even stopping once/hr to close my eyes and breath slowly helped me out.
DeleteI am the one who left the original comment-- I passed! Hurrah!
DeleteThe exam was indeed very difficult, but I was not surprised with the amount of word/phrase questions, given that last year more than half of the exam was word/phrase questions and also the SPE 2014 (4th edition) Sample Exam was 60% word/phrase questions. Your 2016 sample exam also prepared me for the amount of word/phrase questions. There were at least 2-3 questions from your 2016 Sample Exam that were similar in topic in the actual exam this year. I haven't encountered those topics anywhere else during my 150+ hours of studying. The afternoon session was a lot more difficult than the morning session, and nothing was a direct simple problem, not even the simple mud mixing and well testing problems. Everything had some complications and needed more calculations than just the plug and chug. A lot of the problems were facilities/operations related. Those questions are very difficult to answer if you don't have the right experience or right reference material. I depended on my previous production/workover/facilities experience to answer many of those pump/compressor/OSHA MOC/gas emissions/pigging/chemical treatment questions. I am currently in a Reservoir role and my previous experience really helped a lot. I don't know how a frac or wireline engineer will be able to pass such a test, or even a petroleum engineer who has only worked in Reservoir.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, your Guidebook and Practise Exam were really helpful. Thanks for putting those together. I would improve the Guidebook by including more theory especially on facilities/pumps/compressors/snubbing/gas emissions (ton/yr)/geology/depositional environments, etc.
Also one more thing to add... even though Bing advised against focusing on the SPE 2014 Sample Exam (4th edition - 100 problem sample exam), I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend that future exam takers focus on this sample exam!!! It's the most recent SPE sample exam and more applicable to the 2014+ exam editions. The 2004 sample exam is very outdated.
DeleteThanks Anon.
DeleteEveryone has a different view on practice exams; a lot of that is based upon their background. My thought on the 2014: having taken the 2015 exam, I find the 2014 Sample Exam to be even less applicable than the 2004! Why? The 2004, while calc heavy, is hard to finish in time and covers a lot of theory behind the calcs. And for me, time is the key issue.
I found the 2014 simple, but the real one extremely hard. I do agree that a person should know everything on the 2014 pre-exam. BUT just because one knows every single problem on the 2014 doesn't mean a thing; they might still badly fail the PE exam I took.
Agreed. The 2004 sample exam is still valuabe and important to master for the calculation problems. Your 2016 practise exam has also been helpfull, by the way. There were at least 2-3 questions in your 2016 practise exam that were similar in topic to questions in the actual exam that I haven't seen anywhere else before. I think the key is to practise as much as possible... and since SPE has the 2014 sample exam out there, it's worth mastering along with the other exams. I thought the 2014 sample exam was similar in difficulty to the 2016 actual exam.
DeleteAnon, thanks again! Very useful. I'm going to look over the 2014 again when I have some time.
DeleteQuestion: were there problems on the 2014 exam you found challenging? If so which ones? Because I'll be glad to put similar problems on my blog (like I do with the 2016 & 2004).
Here are a few good/challenging problems from the 2014 sample exam:
Delete10, 11, 12, 17, 30 (good problem but all given answers are wrong and unrealistic .. most pressure relief valves I dealt with are less than 1" in diameter, and this problem should require a very very small relief valve due to the low pressure and low gas volumes), 44, 60, 61, 71 (not really challenging but good surface pump selection knowledge problem).
I would also include a few problems in regards to snubbing calculations and coiled tubing applications. And a lot more facilities questions. For some reason the number of facilities questions keeps increasing (rightfully so, maybe, due to tougher regulations on emissions and process safety?), but SPE does not have a clear competency matrix for facilities engineering. If they are going to include a lot of facilities questions in the PE exam then they need to develop a competency matrix for facilities so that everyone is aware what SPE expects in terms of competency in this petroleum sub-discipline.
Isnt the 2014 Exam fourth edition an SPE ceertification Exam rather than the PE Petroleum Exam ?
ReplyDeleteYes it is. All the exams - 2004, 2009 and 2014 are from SPE. There are no NCEES practice exams for Petroleum so it really makes no difference what the SPE exam is called. My only issue with the 2014 exam is that it's riddled with errors and wrong answer keys for some of the calculation problems. SPE can do better!
DeleteFolks there is just no other way to prepare for the trivia/conceptual/word problems other than on the job experience. I took different references to the exam and flipped to the chapters and still had no clue what the answers to these problems were! Like David said, these guys won't ask questions that you can easily flip pages and find answers. Even the ones you can find the answers in your book, it's gonna take you a while to get there. It's really tough guys...at least with the 2004 exam, you get to practise solid calculation problems and then hope for the best with the conceptual problems on the exam...
That is true about the question papers. I just thought I will mention it. And like you said, there is no easy way to get the word problems right, unless you have a good working experience in every Petro Engg areas.
DeleteGreat discussion; I've learned a lot.
DeleteI do have one comment: even though the word problems are very confusing and difficult to look up, I think they are generally "fair". By this, I mean if one has reviewed the basics and have a general understanding of them, a reasonable answer can be obtained without looking anything up. However, I do think the language is designed to be tricky, and that's where one might consider it unfair, especially if they are not strong on English. Personally I was most concerned on subject I knew well for this reason; overconfidence kills. I was far more careful on subjects I was weak on.
I think 2 problems each half exam (5%, or 4 problems total) are "out there", and deliberately meant to be too hard or too long for 90% of engineers. And I think it absolutely critical to recognize these problems ASAP and skip them.
Said another way: the very best engineers sink their teeth into a challenging problem and won't let it go until they crush it. This otherwise admirable trait hurts on the exam. Many who don't pass win the battles, only to lose the war.
I thought the PM section was much harder; there were some esoteric facilities questions, and more challenging drilling and reservoir questions than there were on the AM. There were a few codes/standards questions that you had to guess on if you didn't have the references in your library. The GB was my most used reference. Thanks David for writing it and for your recommendation to buy the Hyne dictionary. It was my second most used reference and helped me get the correct answer on five or more word problems. I got it from amazon prime a day before the exam and I was so glad I did.
ReplyDeleteThanks George. I had the exact reaction you had on the dictionary. Note the Dictionary for the Oil and Gas Industry, 2nd edition, by UOT Austin is also OK (although not quite as complete). For example, I looked up "shirttail" in both, Hyde mentions the shirttail packer, while UOT does not. But the UOT is more compact and better format IMO, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it instead if I already had it.
DeleteLet me correct that prior comment: I've been looking through the UOT dictionary and found many lapses. The last one: no "cut point" (solid removal) which is crazy. Exactly the kind of question for the PE exam. I definitely would not use the UOT, stick with Hyne.
DeleteIt's been quiet here...is everyone ready to see their results in a few days? Going by last year, the result should be out on Friday (6 weeks).
ReplyDeleteI was thinking we'd see the results on the 16th, next Friday...anyone else hear differently? Anyone else here take the Texas exam?
ReplyDeleteI'm a 2nd-timer from TX...we took the test on Oct. 30th last year and got the results back on Dec. 11th (6 weeks). Where did you get the 16th date from?
ReplyDeleteEnough with this waiting already!
ReplyDeleteI had read on the NCEES website somewhere that the results are expected to be released to the State Boards by Dec 16th...sounds like if we're lucky, might be a bit sooner.
ReplyDeleteWhat was your take on this year's exam vs last year's exam? I'm curious on how I should adapt my studying if I didn't pass. Was the exam substantially different year to year?
Did we all get our results? What was the pass rate for 2016?
ReplyDeleteThe results are out
ReplyDeleteIs there any way to tell what the pass rate was for this year??
ReplyDeleteSo where do we start now if we didn't pass?
ReplyDeleteResources and practice tests.
DeleteIf you are using a GB, send yours in for the latest for free.
Do and redo the 2004 Sample Exam and 2015, 2016 Practice Exams until you can do them in your sleep. If you can complete those exams in the proper time, I will be shocked you can't pass.
Reporting from Texas...I failed :(. Bummed.
ReplyDeleteRespect. Most people don't have the balls to even try. You did, and it's a valuable experience, regardless. Don't let it get to you, life goes on.
DeleteIf you plan to retake, write down everything you think would help for next exam today, because you will quickly forget. Trust me on this one.
If you are going to retake using the GB, send yours in for the latest for free. Make sure you commit to whatever resources right now, so you can spend time with them right out of the gate.
Mostly, do (and redo) the 2004 Sample Exam and 2016, 2017 Practice Exams. If you can complete those exams in the proper time, I will be shocked you can't pass next time.
Thanks David! I'll try even harder next year. Those conceptual/theoretical questions got me really bad. I also struggle with timed exams as I always never seem to get through all the questions and wind up guessing on a bunch at the end. Some of these I believe I can answer if I had a little more time. I guess I just have to practise harder. Any additional tips from you and those that passed will be appreciated. Any chance some more conceptual nuggets are included in your GB?
DeleteThe GB covers some of those questions in the sidebars, but you really have to "know" the fine print before the exam, not look them up during. The new GB also has 4 extra pages to help counter this issue.
DeleteSee the discussion with Jason and I above on the different methods of looking up/solving these types of problems. I'm a slow worker, and thus tried to "know" most of them, not look them up, but Jason used the Handbook for them with success. Note the 2016-17 practice exams have many of these style of questions that the 2004 sample exam does not.
Reporting from Oklahoma ( I took the exam in TX), I passed. In my opionion, the structure of the exam was more like the 100 sample questions that have floating around for a while now (Study Guide for the SPE Petroleum Engineering Certification Examination). The funny thing was that Mr Bing said that the sample was a joke because over 50% of the questions were not calculations. It turned out the real exam was like that. But it would not hurt to know the classic calculation problems. In all honesty I feel the only reason I passed if because of my indepth knowledge of reservoir engineering, and my test taking abilities. The word problems from the drilling, operations and facilities are a toss up. But with a lot of studying, those word problems can be doable.
ReplyDeleteCongrats! Well done. Curious: besides the Cert Exam and Bing's class, what practice exams and resources do you most recommend? What did you study from?
DeleteI think the reason people dislike the SPE Cert Exam is because it's so easy, and the real exam is so hard (that's what I thought in 2015 and agreed with Bing).
I took Mr Bings advice. I knew almost every problem in his book and read the drilling book pretty well. I then I skimmed through the 6 series handbook. I first took the 2004 sample exam I scored 43. Then I studied the problems I got wrong very hard the were mainly the classic calculations problems like acrhies, PVT, tubing stretching, balance cement plugging. Then I took your sample exam and I scored 47. I noticed that I got the same type of problems wrong again. And I studied these problems even harder. A week before the exam looked at the 100 sample questions. I stopped mid way because I felt it wasn't representive and the some of the calc problems were too easy.
DeleteI have been a reservoir engineer for 10 years. My experience was the the 2016 didn't have enough of the easy type reservoir engineering problems and a lot more difficult problems which I was able to tackle pretty well because of my experience. If I am too take this test again, I would bring all my reference material, and study in depth another discipline apart from reservoir engineering. In 2016, there was some on production engineering which were not in your guide or Mr Bings. And in all honesty, those problems were standard production engineering problems.
Wow, that's really informative. Thank you. Since you were able to get 60% on my exam, I would have bet good money you would pass.
DeleteQuestion: with so much reference material, wouldn't you be worried hunting through it would create time issues? I can't learn that much stuff and end up flipping pages.
Maybe I'm just too slow. But I did just talk to a guy who used only the GB and a few basic books during the exam and passed, so both ways can work I guess. I think some engineers are just faster than others and I'm in the "slow" camp. But it's important for each engineer to figure out how fast he can use resources and decide based on that. What do you think?
That was my plan too, to flip as little page as possible. But the facilities questions and drilling were a lot different than I expected... I will definitely bring the petroleum dictionary, that is probably the 2nd most important reference.
DeleteBut in the end I had a P and I am so happy about it
Makes sense. Your comment is fascinating, because while you would make lots of changes...you PASSED! We focus on what is missed or not known...but the results show you knew a lot of stuff on the exam half the other engineers didn't know. Good job and congratulations!
DeleteReporting from Texas - I passed! :) But I say this after several failures taking the exam, but deciding to not give up. Trust me it is soooooo worth it in the end! The GB was my most used reference and all I have to say is that this is the first time I had it with me on the exam and I actually passed! Thank you David for this blog, the GB, and the sample exams - invaluable!
ReplyDeleteTo anyone who did not pass this year - don't give up - take it from someone who thought they would never pass the exam - but yesterday was my day!
Folks who didn't pass this year should read this comment! It's easy to not pass this exam on the first or second run, and it's no big deal.
DeleteMany who don't pass the first time may actually know most of the material. I know this because they often find mistakes on my practice exam and GB (hat tip: V!). Valerie also easily passed the Cert exam, first try, so she clearly knows her stuff. It's very easy to miss a few tricky problems on this exam by chance. Never let not passing this exam bother you at all. Just gear up and hit it again!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey David, I purchased your PE guidebook through Amazon. But it was through the seller Tsalteshi. Is that the right way to purchase your GB? Please advise. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYep, Tsalteshi is me! Cheers
DeleteI placed the order this morning. I am planning to take the exam this year. Just to confirm, is there any change made in the GB or anything that I need to notice particularly? Thanks.
DeleteNope, you are good to go. Your book (most recent printing) is already in the mail; it should arrive this weekend or Monday at the latest. A letter with my email is included so don't hesitate to send me any questions directly as well. Most of all make sure you read the resource page on this blog and get geared up early, so you can get familiar with your chosen resources long before you take your practice exams.
DeleteReally appreciate the comments! And I am very grateful that you create this communication channel to get everybody together. Petroleum is definitely a minority in the PE family. But this blog makes it more approachable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow are you preparing for the test moving to Computer Based Testing in 2019?
ReplyDeleteHi Anon! Why would taking the test on a computer change how one prepares?
DeleteYou are correct. The concepts won't change, but the different testing question types and how you practice handling your time managing look ups, etc would be different. That's what I was referencing.
DeleteWith the standard A-D selection, the resources and scratch paper remaining the same, I'm not sure where the change would be. Better, more visible graphs? Not being able to put a straight edge on the computer? But that's all trivial. In fact, my practice exams are all digital too. Do you see anything amiss with my thoughts? I haven't really given it much care, honestly.
DeleteOnce the test goes to computer based format, not all the questions will be multiple choice (A-D). Some will be matching, fill in the blank, pick a point, etc. The FE exam has utilized some of these types of questions.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I could see some FITB & PAP questions making one stop and think a bit. Good point.
DeletePlease post solutions to 48 and 66 from the 2017 afternoon practice test. Thanks!
ReplyDelete48 is up; let me know if it checks out for you.
Delete66 is up; again let me know if it checks.
DeleteIs there a typo in 2017 AM #7? I know this should be an easy problem, but I cannot get the answer of 20 md. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI'll post the solution.
DeleteLet me know when you've looked it over and are ok with it.
DeleteIs there any way to print these practice tests???
ReplyDeleteNo; I just use them on my phone with scratch paper.
DeleteYou won't want to bring them to the exam anyway. Put some reminders on the ones you have trouble with in the margins of your primary resource under that subject.
Regarding question #38 on the 2016 AM exam, why is the 50/50 risk not applied to the solution?
ReplyDeleteWe are asked: within how many days should the fishing expert be certain he can get the fish before one should assume the fishing job will be cost effective. On the GB, a 0.5 factor is used, but in the practice exam, the 0.5 factor is not used. If the solution is correct, in what context would one take the 0.5 factor into consideration?
Thank you
#38 is just like the GB example, including the 0.5 factor, to get 5 days. ((400+100)/50)0.5 = 10(0.5) = 5 days. I'll put a post up if you would like.
DeleteI just saw the solution on the main page today--thank you. I initially asked because the answer key (on the 2016 AM exam) indicates that the answer is (B) 9.8 days (not 5, as in the GB example). But I totally understand it otherwise. Thanks again.
DeleteIt might have been updated from when you bought it. Please open it again and let me know if your exam shows it wrong currently. Thanks!
DeleteThat's probably the case. I just checked again and it is, in fact, indicating that the correct answer is 9.8 days (Data given is same as in GB). There isn't even an option for 5 days, i.e. A) 8.2, B) 9.8, C) 10.7, and D) 12.3.
DeleteThe GB says it is the Third printing (June 2017).
In any case, it's no big deal. I'm just glad I'm able to clarify with you through this medium. Many thanks.
Thank you. You should have been "pushed" the option of downloading a new Kindle update for the book when you updated it. Regardless, you should be able to remove the book from your device and then "push" it back to the device and it should be updated. Sorry about that!
DeleteHi mdavid,
ReplyDeleteAny chance you could please share a little more detail with regard to the Cash Flow Breakeven problem on the 2016 exam? (#80)
I see a table in the GB, 10 ECN 1, but I can't seem to understand the process.
Many thanks.
Emmanuel, solution is now on the blog. Please let me know if it checks out for you.
DeleteWhere can i get a copy of PE Exam Certification for training purposes?
ReplyDeleteHey mdavid, I really appreciate your work creating the guidebook, practice exams, and this blog. I'm taking the exam for the first time on Friday. Are the problems on your practice exams representative of the difficulty and length of the problems on the actual exam? I feel like none of your problems have been excessively difficult (not complaining), but a couple of the problems on the 2014 SPE exam have made me want to tear my hair out. What kind should I be prepared for?
ReplyDeleteEase of the exam depends on what you find difficult. As I've said here before, I found the 2004 brutal, the 2014 so easy to be a joke, and my exams to be about right. It all depends on what you know and what style you find difficult.
DeleteAs far as what the real exam is, that changes year to year. My exams are written to learn the GB and experience the pace and resources needed, so if you cheat and just use the GB to find the answer rather than learn the material it will often seem very easy. In short, YMMV, mostly depending on your experience and style.
That's fair. Your practice exams really have helped me learn the GB. I actually found 2014 to be easier than 2004.. I guess my goal today is to figure out what specific questions made me feel that way and study those
Delete