2018 is history. Leave any comments (and suggestions for blog, Guidebook, and Guidebook Companion improvements) in the comments below. I would enjoy hearing from anyone and everyone.
Please remember the blog rule: prior PE Exam questions, in whole or in part, will NOT be discussed on this blog. General topics, such as resources, testing techniques, or general problems only!
UPDATE: PLEASE remember the blog rule!!! I'm having to delete entire comments below (much with good commentary) because they "cross the line" into problem discussion.
For example, comments like: "several of the...questions
with probability” is crossing the line (as I've just been informed by a person who decides where that "line" is).
Come on folk; I'm going to start moderating comments before they post to respect the integrity of the test. Or just remove these type of posts (or even the blog) altogether. Let's help everyone out here so people can have a free resource to study from (as well as become better engineers).
One more clarification: if your comment got deleted, please note I'm NOT claiming it was improper; I'm sure I nuked a lot of good, legit comments that were mixed into other comments. I'm just trying to be very conservative and fast at the same time.
I'll kick this thread off with things I've come to believe talking to folk this year:
ReplyDelete1) The 7 Volume SPE Handbook Series (HS) is mandatory. The whole set (see link to it lower left). Tab the VII Index by letter. Using it when you study or do practice exams. Underline key passage in pencil through the entire Handbook. Also write selected ones down in the Guidebook or whatever "primary" text you are using.
2) The Hyde Dictionary (see resource page), TS2, & TS 12 are must haves.
3) Learning to do problems (especially word problems) quickly and under pressure is key. Learn to use your watch and pace on the half-hour.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Anon. Any words of wisdom for the use of practice problems from 2016, 2017, 2018? Or timing suggestions?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteRemember everything changes next year with the CBT closed book exam. It’s going to be an interesting one without any allowed references. My guess is that the word problems won’t be as vicious on the CBT.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteaxg275: Thanks for commenting, but please repost without talking about actual problems you saw on the exam. General subjects, study suggestions, and resource recommendations are very welcome :-).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis Review is EXACTLY how i felt as well. Bing's Binder didn't feel as useful. The 2009 practice exam was a cakewalk compared to this. I think SPE or NCEES needs to release past exams, so instructors like Bing can update their materials accordingly.
DeleteAlso does anyone know what the School of PE petroleum prep is like?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFirst time taking the PE and I primarily used your guidebook and practice tests, plus the 2009 SPE and a friend's copy of the binder from Bing's class. I echo what the above posters mention. Working the practice problems was helpful, but only to practice finding formulas and definitions, not to practice specific equations. It was almost as if the questions were purposely avoiding examples used in the guidebook and Bing's binder.
ReplyDeleteI probably used the dictionary for 20 or so questions; one of my best resources. The handbooks were a must, even though I hate the layout of those books and I'm always disappointed with how useful the chapters are. There were many questions with random tidbits you had to hunt down in the handbook.
I felt like drilling and facilities were 90% of it....well ok, maybe 60% but as a reservoir person I was hurting. The morning was actually easier for me but maybe they shuffled them around.
Thanks for putting together the guide!! Highly appreciated!!
Thanks for that comment! I agree with you on the dictionary for sure.
DeleteSide note, I read your dedication page in the handbook and I think the real hero here is your wife!
DeleteHeh. Her mom had 2 so culture shock. Funny: I wrote the GB living 5 mi from this family of 13 (we're just a piddly little family...).
DeleteNo joke! Wow. We just have 1 right now and are at the stage where even families with 3 seem like they must be super-humans hah
DeleteI passed!!!! Thanks so much for your help and work on the guidebook!!
DeleteCongrats! The best part? You will carry this knowledge and know your resource list for the rest of your life.
DeleteI thought the exam was incredulously difficult. The AM was filled with impossible questions out of left field. Since I missed out on billion $$$ lottery jackpot this week , hoping I get lucky with my many guesses this time. Thanks for your guidebook. It did help some but too many word problems!
ReplyDeleteAnon, thanks for the insight. Did you to the 2018 pracice problem set?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePads the percent.
Deletefor scale I think
I got about 40 right on exam- a far cry from 46.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteNo problem Anon, thanks for your input. This blog was never for discussing actual problems on the exam itself but rather subjects and materials.
DeleteMy feeling about the exam is similar. The morning session is OK, but the afternoon session is crazy hard. Yes, I also feel most problems are about drilling and facilities, not my reservoir background. The Production and Reservoir problems are not as much as promised. I also feel if time allowed, better to read all the handbooks and be familiar with the contents. I will be back next time.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did and recommend is to underline in pencil all applicable passages I don't understand.
DeleteWhen I took the exam what worked for me: read each chapter in the Handbook & underline in pencil everything that is confusing or new. Then I slowly erased stuff as I learned it, or put it in note form in the Guidebook. By the time of the exam I basically didn't much open the Handbook.
Probably about 1/3-1/2 of the 2018 Practice Problem set are word problems. How did you find them to stack up>
Eveeyone go to your NCEES account @ account.ncees.org and let them hear it. Be respectful but talk about how screwed the exam is for Petroleum Engineers of all discipline. You work hard, do well on practice tests and see a totally different exam structure. Why can’t they get us practice exams like others? I’m sure if we complain enough, they’ll change things. It’s going to get worse especially with te CBT next year if we don’t speak up.
ReplyDeleteBooks
ReplyDeleteRedBook. Essential. Get practice throwing where is where.
SPE Volume Set is mandatory. Around ~25 questions I answered or checked from there. Spend a couple weeks and go through and outline each book. Saved me a lot of time instead of having to refer to the index.
TS - I brought 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13. They weren't useful. Be familiar with TS13 to understand when a specific equation can be applied.
Hyne - Mandatory. There was a bunch of terms I haven't seen before. Saved me on ~5 questions. Helped me double check some of the word questions I thought were gimmees.
Guidebook - Nice to have, use for get equation if you don't remember them.
Test
NRG was freezing. Bring a handwarmer.
Morning session was fast. I got a lucky, there were a bunch of word questions related to my job that I knew off the top of my head.
Afternoon session was the opposite. A lot more tougher calculation and word problems.
The biggest takeaway is that the test tries to trick you more often than not (especially with questions that are so obvious, you read it 5x, spend 15 minutes working it, before giving up and selecting the answer you identify 30s after looking at it). Be careful and watch for units. Don't freak out, take the time to calm down and get through it.
I'm curious why you thought the Redbook was important. In 2015 the only times I used the Redbook I discovered that my thinking it necessary was a trick, and once I understood the whole problem I didn't actually need the Redbook. I've heard many others say the same thing during 2015, 2016, 2017. Any thoughts?
DeleteI didn't use the redbook even once.
Delete@mdavid your guidebook was helpful in working some of the few calculation problems since I could pull out equations quickly. I also found answers or tips for 2-3 word problems which saved me some handbook search time. Here's hoping for the best because the exam was generally rough
First time test taker here. I thought the exam was difficult and the evening section was even more difficult. For a future exam taker my advice is to know the SPE 7 series inside out, have the Hyne dictionary and the guide book from David. May be SPE sees this comment and will change the structure :)
ReplyDeleteFor me this exam was a joke all they wanted to do was make Bing's course and David's guide book irrelevant as possible. For a discipline that has no resources out there I wish SPE could work with people like Bing and David to make this exam more practical. Most likely I will have to re-take it, but if I have to I will go with a different discipline that has better structure and less head butting with people who are tying to help.
I'm not sure the exam writers even care about Bing or my Guidebook. The Handbook is big since it's a new book set (replacing Bradley) and they are just now getting into using it. But they don't want you to be able to use it directly either. They want to test your knowledge, not to make it a battle of references.
DeleteIn 2015 I simply used the Guidebook to reference subjects and center my mind, not get "exact" solutions or examples of problem sets. The test is too big and diverse for that. I just used the GB to find the subject, review it, and help me work it. I think it very very dangerous to start flipping pages to solve problems; they work hard to prevent this from working.
My practice problems are not meant to "predict" what's on the exam either. It's meant to get one familiar with the Guidebook and the pace of looking up problems. The 2018 Practice Problems are much tougher than earlier ones to make the time more rigorous.
The exam really is trying hard to prevent people from looking up problems or just being able to "calculate" fast. Using any resource is no solution to actual knowledge. This is why Bing's class or the Guidebook cannot take the test for you, not so much as them moving the exam around them. Remember, the test was this way when I took it an the Guidebook didn't even exist yet.
I really don't think the test has changed very much since 2015 talking to people. I never really used the Handbook much because I simply knew most of the material from reading it. I think it dangerous to rely upon "looking things up" rather than knowing it or being able to "guess" what the tester is trying to trick one on.
I agree with most comments above. Test was difficult, morning being more difficult. One thing that annoyed me were the problems that you had to calculate a certain mud weight. I would come up with something like xx.02 or xx.05. The company I work for teaches to always round up. I wasn't sure how to handle on the exam. I'm sure Bing addresses this, but I didn't take the course.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePretty much everything in the above comments are spot on. This was a very hard exam. IMO, the PM was harder than the AM. The PM truly is a grind to the finish, and avoiding fatigue is extremely important. This test is all gas, no breaks. Caffeine management was key for me.
ReplyDeleteI put in approximately 200 hours of study, which included Bing's course, all of David's exams, and both exams put out by SPE.
The most helpful thing I did was spend 20+ hours going through the Handbook series page by page, tabbing every chapter and every piece of information that seemed like it could easily be formatted into a test question. This was a huge help on the exam. I didn't read the whole series, but putting my eyes on every page was beneficial.
It is obvious they are trying to make Bing's course irrelevant...and I found this particularly true in the amount of answers that came directly out of the Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering text SPE vol 12. Bing specifically said to not spend time in this book. I took the time to go through it and brought it with me. It seemed to be that 3-4 that came straight out of it...and were not in ADE (TS2) or the Handbook series.
As stated above, this is now a test of references.
A good addition to the guidebook could be a couple pages with the table of contents for each of the Handbook series, I think this could save a lot of time for someone who wasn't able to put a ton of time into combing through every Handbook.
I just find the handbook to not be user-friendly under exam conditions. They were a couple of problems where I managed to find the correct section in the handbook and eliminated two options easily but still couldn't tell if my final answer was the correct one! The more puzzling thing is I didn't even have the time to go through all the calculation problems I practiced very well because the word problems kept showing up and it quickly became a battle of of references. Hopefully we get an all time low cut score this year to get us over the top.
DeleteThere were multiple where I pieced together parts from the Handbooks and information from Hyne's dictionary to get a final answer. The two work well together.
DeleteOP here, I passed in Texas! Thanks again, David for everything. Your practice exams and guidebook were excellent and helpful. That test was a real beast!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteyes....yes I did.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI'm guessing they might throw that question out, which actually peaves me because I think I got it "right" with the data they provided.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThere were some other ambiguous questions (word problems) I thought were confusing. I had the right resources in front of me but couldn't pick a sure fire correct answer. I plan to send NCEES a detailed feedback on the ones I can still remember before they start grading. Our chances may improve if these ambiguous questions are thrown out. I'm not sure if experts in these disciplines reviewed the fairness of these questions. I encourage you guys to send them feedbacks so we are heard. The scary thing is there won't be an open book exam next year. How the heck are we going to answer these other PE disciplines word problems??? I'm a 13-yr Industry veteran that haven't come across any of the hardcore corrosion problems I saw last Friday.
DeleteThe scary thing is there won't be an open book exam next year.
DeleteHow sure are you of this? The reason I ask is that the other engineering disciplines still have open book, right?
@mdavid here's the link...NCEES is going to post the "reference guide" in 6 months. The reference guide will be online only during the exam and no other text is allowed at the venue. They started this with the Chemical exam last year. I don't have a clue how we are going to attack facilities word problems without taking text references to the test?
Deletehttps://ncees.org/engineering/pe/petroleum/
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteOriginal Poster Here: I will try to keep things more vague.
ReplyDeleteFirst time taking it and not what I was expecting at all. The morning session was incredibly difficult. The afternoon was more attackable but still very hard in its own right. I was expecting plenty calculation problems, and spent a majority of my time working problems (yours, Bing's, etc.) and was disappointed to see it was very heavy centered on the word/conceptual side. The facility questions were a joke, I skipped them. I found the SPE series is what I leaned heavily on. Seems like they did everything possible in writing this year's exam to avoid problems that could be worked from Bing's class and the guidebook, but the guidebook was still essential in a quick lookup of equations and what references to go to for certain topics. There must have been 20 out of the 80 problems that I read and just laughed at, things I had never even heard of before. Overall, my takeaway in preparing for next year is know pretty much everything out of SPE Volume 3 (or 4? whichever one has all the separators, compressors, etc.), and I will definitely not be spending as much time doing problems and will instead focus on knowing the references as well as I possibly can. It was quite annoying hearing all the other disciplines talk about how they pulled problems straight from their NCEES practice exams.
Overall, I've only hear of 1 person out of dozens that think they passed, they said they read the entire 7 volume set and tabbed extensively all 7 volumes. I feel this was the only way to pass this year's exam. The amount of word problems/conceptual problems was mind-blowing. I took Bing's course and I can honestly say while it was an amazing course in that it actually taught most of the important aspects of Petroleum Engineering, it helped very little for the actual exam because the writers of the test very obviously wrote it around his course and easily solved problems from the guidebook, which is absurd in my opinion.
Great comment Anon.
DeleteOverall, I've only hear of 1 person out of dozens that think they passed
Note my comment above: I know several guys in 2017 who got ~90% who both were uncertain of they passed.
Agree with you about Bing's course. Remember David Voucher's comment linked on my blog: he said he didn't miss a SINGLE calc problem, yet he failed. That's the whole answer.
the writers of the test very obviously wrote it around his course and easily solved problems from the guidebook, which is absurd in my opinion.
I'm not so sure of this. When I took the exam in 2015 I didn't find calc probs to help but were I writing the exam I wouldn't do it that way either. I would write problmes that test actual knowledge, not calc speed, nor allow a "battle of resources". That's all they are doing.
The way the Guidebook helps? To see the "range" of information you will be tested on, which notifies each person what areas they need to get stronger in, and then have a "central" place to keep notes and reference as you skim other materials. This is how I passed in 2015. But I didn't walk out of that monster boasting about how good I did. I felt like I got run over by a train...
The guidebook was a help, though it wasn't a savior. I think it probably helped me on 8 or so problems.
DeleteOP here, I did not mean that the guidebook was not helpful, just that the calculation problems seemed to be purposefully written to avoid the examples in there. It is also tough being that I graduated college Spring 2017 so my post graduate knowledge of the industry is still in infancy stage, making it nearly impossible to know any random questions just from experience.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great comment Anon. We all face this problem. This is why Practice Problems arranged like the exam allows one to "practice" letting go of problems that eat up too much time. In the 2018 Practice Set I include several problems nobody can solve in time. It's here one can practice "letting go" before it's too late.
DeleteThe best way to handle this IMO? Firm 6 min/prob limit 5 problem sets, and use any remaining time where you think you get the most "bang for the buck".
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.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletecheck TS 12-597 for the table your looking for
DeleteFYI - looks like so many of you are not aware or maybe forgot the test will be CBT next year. It's going to look totally different as outside references won't be allowed like the FE. Nobody knows what kind of questions will be tested but it would be cruel to test on on these crazy word problems in disciplines we don't have any business with. Go to this link for details:
ReplyDeletehttps://ncees.org/engineering/pe/petroleum/
I see nothing on there about no outside references, it still looks like after they reference the computer exam they go back to paper and pencil rules. Where are you seeing that?
DeleteTry this...
Deletehttps://ncees.org/exams/cbt/
I just contacted NCEES and they said it will be closed book. It will be very interesting
DeleteAlso I know folks that took the Chemical CBT exam recently and they said the new format is like the CBT. They passed but then again they don't have to deal with 5 different disciplines like us Petroleum Engineers.
Delete*FE CBT
DeleteActually maybe having it closed book is a good thing. It means answers can be found with any reference material they give to us. That is assuming they give us reference. And if the reference is searchable like the FE, Even better.
DeleteMy understanding is SPE writes the tests for the PE. Maybe we should also contact SPE with some of our concerns as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree we should contact SPE especially before the new CBT exam is administered. These guys don't care because we are not speaking up. Petroleum Engineering is probably the only discipline without NCEES published sample exams. Also our colleagues in other disciplines have many prep options (testmasters, PPI, School of PE, etc) - all we have is the great but outdated Bing class. Other discipline get to take an exam focusing on their specialty in the afternoon session. I'm sure they'll point us to folks that "passed" in prior years. Yes some of these folks are smarter Petroleum Engineers but I guarantee many others passed cos of the quality or quantity of reference materials brought to attack the word problems without any real knowledge of these concepts. That's not a wise way to certify a professional engineer. Send feedback to SPE Engineering Professionalism Committee. They prepare these exams. If I pass this one, I hope the folks after me don't go through this process. Very frustrating...
ReplyDeleteIts funny but on NCEES website it reads as follows:
Delete"The Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam tests for a minimum level of competency in a particular engineering discipline. It is designed for engineers who have gained a minimum of four years’ post-college work experience in their chosen engineering discipline."
https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/petroleum/
Notice the language around "minimum level of competency"....
The SPE exam review is going to be reshot this fall and is suppose to be adding some major updates. Maybe that's the class you should take if you don't pass this year and have to take next year. Make sense since SPE writes the exam and wants you to reference their material.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI got an email back from NCEES this morning saying the following:
ReplyDelete"Than you for your comments and opinion. I recommend you use the PE Petroleum Specifications to prepare for the exam. They can be found at https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PE-Pet-Oct-2014-1.pdf. "
Unfortunately this is the first time I see this document. It does have the corrosion as one of the subjects we should have studied.
Trust me I saw that specification document before the exam but it didn't change anything. The books I took for the test for corrosion and other facilities stuff didn't help me a lot.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I had that. It didn't help.
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteFirst time test taker here. Graduated college with a 3.79 and have been working in the industry for 2 years now. Test was incredibly difficult for me because i have never been exposed to half of the material i was tested over. What makes it worse is that i am sure the questions were very simple to solve, however being blind sided i was unable to come to a conclusive answer. Frustrating, however i do not like to make excuses. I have never failed an exam before, hopefully this is not the first.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog. Extremely helpful. Thanks for the resource.
ReplyDeleteGuys instead of coming here to discuss problems you don't have any powers to change at this point, let's voice our concerns to those responsible for putting this exam together. That will be the NCEES and SPE. We all agree that pass or fail, this test doesn't truly test petroleum engineering competence. Respectfully send your comments to NCEES and/or SPE using the following talking points. Even if you wind up passing, you may be helping someone taking it in the future. They feel it's just fine since folks are not complaining enough.
ReplyDeleteTALKING POINTS:
1. Petroleum Engineering PE exam is the only major discipline that combines 5 or 6 independent sub-disciplines (Drilling, Completions, Production, Facilities, Reservoir/Petrophysics & Project Management) into one exam without an option for the Depth (or specialty) session in the PM like the other disciplines (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil). These other disciplines take the general exam in the AM and focus on their specialty in the PM. This is surprising since Petroleum Engineering is as broad as these other disciplines. A reservoir engineer for example, never works on facilities corrosion monitoring.
2. The petroleum exam lacks any recently updated prep course. The SPE course has been historically poor and the other option by Mr. Bing Wines is solid but outdated. We don’t have the benefit of prep courses by national franchises like Testmasters, PPI and School of PE.
3. The pass rates since the updated exam began leaning heavily on facilities and conceptual problems in 2014 have been very low even at relatively low cut scores per reports (the 2017 exam was an outlier). These fringe sub-disciplines are not mainstream petroleum engineering. Almost every petroleum engineer is expected to know how to calculate the time value of money but not all of us are expected to know about some facilities code and regulations.
4. The exam is moving to CBT in 2019 with no clear guidance to potential examinees. The 2018 exam was filled with borderline trivia, conceptual questions from fringe sub-disciplines (facilities, project management) that wasn’t a fair representation of what most practicing petroleum engineers do on a daily basis. Conceptual problems should focus on what an average Petroleum Engineer is expected to know so we are not checking our open books and hoping to find the answer.
The End.
Honestly,
DeleteI'd kind of like my money back as far as NCEES goes. They didn't really make a test about the principles of practice for Petroleum Engineering. They made a test about the periphery of practice for petroleum engineering. I mean, they might as well have tested us about biochemistry or quantuum physics.
I agree! I hope everyone takes the time to convey this- for the benefit of our profession. Especially with the test changing again we need clarification and changes. Also, SPE's references to their specific books are unfair.
DeleteI want to apologize for the delay in publishing comments; I'm still getting used to the process at Blogger.
DeleteGreat blog. Wonderful resource.
ReplyDeleteI keep going back in my head to this test and can't get it off my mind. I think I scored somewhere around 43. What do you think the cutoff score will be? I don't think 43 will make it.
ReplyDeleteI did the same. My opinion? There is no way to know what problems one gets correct. That is, you can be pretty sure about some of the probs one gets wrong (upon reflection) but never all even most (too many tricks). I'm just thinking of the large number of mistakes I found just checking my work...
Delete@mdavid - Thanks for enabling the comments again. Thats a very important element of this blog. Guys be wise in your comments and avoid discussing details of questions here - the NCEES folks may be reading! I know we're all pissed about the test structure but let's not ruin it for others coming after us or repeat test takers from this year.
ReplyDeleteHappy Turkey Day! Bump this comment with a response if you're hoping for a 40 cut score this year :-)
If it's 40 I may have passed!
DeleteDoes anyone know which electronic handbook will be used in the CBT PE exam in 2019? I am contacting both NCEES and SPE, but without any answers yet.
ReplyDeleteApril 2019. It's on the NCEES website. MDavid - it would be nice if you can create new practice exams using the reference when it's out but release it late so NCEES doesn't see it and change their exam like they are doing with Bing's class now...
ReplyDeleteAww anon, I doubt NCEES (or SPE guys who write the exam) even know my stuff exists. I just have a summary manual of petroleum engineering with matching problem sets to practice using it and I'm not gaming the exam, just sharing what worked for me personally (before I even took the exam itself).
DeleteWe do.
DeleteWe do. We've actually utilized your guidebook to ensure there aren't concepts missing from the overarching guidebook being put together for the CBT.
DeleteIt looks like the NCEES has just released results to the states. Everybody check in when your state releases! Good luck!
ReplyDeleteLouisiana - I PASSED!!!
DeleteCongrats!
DeletePassed.... thanks David. Your guidebook was clutch!
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea of what your score was?
DeleteNo clue. I took the exam in WV and they don't provide results when you pass. I will say I thought the exam was really tough and wasn't sure if I passed.
DeleteOmg I passed! Still very surprised!
ReplyDeleteTX is yet to be released. Maybe tomorrow because of Pres. Bush41 day of mourning. Hopefully you all in other states did good.
ReplyDeleteTook it in Louisiana. For me it says "Result Pending" Not sure what that means
ReplyDeletePassed in Louisiana! This was my 4th time taking it but my 1st time taking it with the guidebook. The guidebook and dictionary made all the difference in the world.
DeleteI passed. I can't believe it. Wasn't sure. Your book and practice tests made a huge difference for me. It was a great complement to Bing's class that I took. Thank you so much for doing this.
ReplyDeletepass from Oklahoma!
ReplyDeleteDavid- when you have more info will you make a post about the cutoff this year? thanks
ReplyDeleteI think there is enough variability in both the talent of testers in each year as well as the text itself that where the cutoff is is sort of a moot point. So I wouldn't focus on that no matter if P or NP; I focus on the problem types and testing methods.
DeleteIt is interesting to those of us who took the exam.
DeleteIt wasn't to me. If I can't even find out which problems I missed (or even which ones I get correct) why waste my time? I would rather relax after a long hard test or (at most) spend my time studying questions I was sure I missed. YMMV :-).
DeleteIf anyone is waiting to see when their state will release results, this forum has a live map update and great moral support.... Still waiting for my state to release! http://engineerboards.com/topic/32860-october-2018-results-map/
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe. . . . I passed. . . .I have never walked out of something so discouraged. I will be interested to see where the cutoff was.
ReplyDeleteJust called the TXBPE, the person on the phone told me they did not get results from NCEES yet.
ReplyDeleteNCEES says my score is on hold. Does anyone know what this means?
ReplyDeleteNot sure what this means but mine are on hold as well.
DeleteSame here.
DeleteWhere are yall from and did you call ncees?
DeleteLouisiana and I emailed someone and was told "Information about your exam will be sent to the Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board for their review. This could take a few days to a few weeks to complete" I have no clue why
DeleteAre you all engineers with less than 4 years experience by any chance?
DeleteSpeaking for one... I am. Though I'm having trouble thinking what it would be about.
DeleteNCEES told me the same thing via email. I am under 4 yrs. I am thinking I am probably right on the borderline of pass/fail.
DeleteOk I don't have 4 years yet either and mine is on hold too. Starting to think they review everyone's who does not have the 4 years experience yet.
DeleteI know multiple ppl with under 4 years who has gotten their scores. Mine is still on hold. Yalls too?
DeleteI do too but they're all non PETE. But yes mine is still on hold, driving me nuts
DeleteI finally got an answer from txbpe. They found a discrepancy on my exam and its taking alot of time to verify it. Couldnt tell me what it was. Didnt sound good. Worried! Anyone know what this might mean?
DeleteMine is still on hold. I can't possibly think of any discrepancy that they could be reviewing.
DeleteI contacted the board, apparently my exam had some "exam irregularities" that they are going to review at their next board meeting. Said I won't find out my results until some time in February.
DeleteHas anyone received any updates on their exam? Mine is still on hold
DeleteTexas result is out on the NCEES website. I passed!
ReplyDeleteI passed. Took the exam in TX for the second time. For a non petroleum mayor your guide was definitely valuable along with Bing's course.
ReplyDeleteFrom NCEES Website (they are indicating that it is updated to Dec 2018 Stats):
ReplyDeleteExam: PE Petroleum
First time takers #: 183
First time taker pass rate: 66%
Repeat Takers #: 59
Repeat takers pass rate: 37%
Format: P&P
Availability: Once per year
Last Updated: Dec 2018
Found the historic tables
ReplyDeleteTest Date First Time Takers First Time Pass Repeat Takers Repeat Pass
Oct 2018 183 66% 59 37%
Oct 2017 187 70% 51 33%
Oct 2016 192 66% 55 40%
Now only to find out the cutoff score. . . . .based on how poorly I felt I did, it had to be mid-40's. . .
When will those who find out scores get info? Same time as pass/fail or that comes later?
Passed - first time taker in TX. Did not feel very confident at all after taking the test. Your guide book and Hyne dictionary were extremely valuable.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you guys from Texas know what the cut score was? I know they provide a score for you guys.
ReplyDeletehttps://engineers.texas.gov/exam_check_grades.php
Mine just says the score percentage, 70%! But I passed, that's what counts. The actual cutoff is usually found out by the higher score of the people that don't pass.
DeletePassed from Texas. Can't believe it either. Left the test laughing cause I thought I'd done so poorly. I'm in shock.
ReplyDeleteScore %s are out in TX
ReplyDeleteand what info does it tell you???? Does it say the curve?
Deleteno. It just tells you your curved score.
DeleteIs anyone elses score on hold? Not sure what this means and it has me worried??
ReplyDeleteI would call NCEES or TBPE to find out why that is....
DeleteFirst time, pass in TX with 87%. Thank you very much, David. Your insight was invaluable in preparation.
ReplyDeletePassed with a 75% here in TX. First timer, non Petroleum degree and about 4 years experience. David's resources were the most beneficial. Practice exams were especially useful leading up to the exam. I didn't take Bing's course, but I did borrow the 2013 course book from someone and studied it. Very helpful and definitely worth the time to review in-depth. There were some great references in the book as well. I didn't think the exam was fair, but I did come away from the whole process with a much better understanding of the various disciplines in petroleum engineering.
ReplyDeleteCurious why you think the exam wasn't fair. It looked to test the multiple facets of petroleum engineering. If you spent a majority of your career in one facet (like drilling or reservoir) it didn't look like you had an advantage over those who do not work in those areas (like production/operations and facilities).
DeleteAnon at 11:48, I'm curious why you think the exam wasn't fair as well. I'm not challenging you, just curious. One of the things I liked about the exam was it forced me to study completely new subjects to me and now have that knowledge for the rest of my career.
DeleteI'm not the OP. I passed in Oklahoma and looking back, I wont go as far as saying the exam is unfair in terms of quality of content and the high level of standards required of a professional engineer. However, I do believe there needs to be more awareness on the true nature of the exam. Guys need to know practical/theoretical principles or word problems and not just spend 90% of their time solving calculation problems while prepping for the test. The "unfairness' stated by the OP stems from the lack of awareness and info on the true nature of the test. I was shocked when I noticed 50-60% of the test was non-calculation problems. This fact is not stressed enough to potential test takers and we are left in shock during the test. David - your blog is doing a great job in correcting this but we need to let future test takers know that you can do well with Bing's binders or David's practice exams but you need to read about the theoretical concepts of all topics listed and at least have an idea what they mean. I saw quite a number of concepts for the first time on the test!
DeleteThanks for that comment Anon 2:10. I agree, and well said.
DeleteOP here, sorry for the late response. I think "unfair" may have been the wrong word. My thoughts are similar to Anon's post at 2:10 pm on 12/7. I think the number of conceptual problems with answers that could be found directly from the SPE handbook series made me feel like I was proficient at looking through references more than anything. Still, it was just a minor complaint. I'm definitely a better engineer because of the whole experience.
DeleteTXBPE said the exact same to me. And yes, i have less than 4 yrs exp. TXBPE also told me that they had 3 exams on hold total.. odd
ReplyDeleteI'm in another state and mine's on hold.
DeleteIs there anyone here who did not get a passing score?
ReplyDeleteFirst time pass with an 87 from Texas. David, thanks a million for meticulously putting together and sharing your guidebook. It truly is a work of art and was my focal point for studying and taking the exam. Hopefully SPE employs your services when creating the “petroleum handbook” that will be the only reference allowed going forward.
ReplyDeleteWow RB that's a heck of a score! Congratulations.
DeleteClearly you are doing things right; got any suggestions for the rest of us regarding studying? I'm thinking: 1) what subjects to focus on, 2) materials to use, 3) time of study, and 4) testing methods? Just keep in mind in your reply the rest of us are probably not as smart as you :-).
Sure thing. For a brief background, I have three years of experience with a degree in Petroleum Engineering. I took Bing’s course this year and studied an additional ~80-120 hours outside of that.
DeleteMy studying consisted of reading and working through Bourgoyne’s Drilling book, John Lee’s Well Testing book, Bing’s binder, 2009 & 2014 SPE Practice Exams, David’s 2016 & 2018 Practice exams, and lastly skimming and tabbing the seven-series handbook set the days leading up to the exam. I used Bourgoyne’s drilling book in multiple undergrad classes and was already very familiar with it, so it probably did not take me as long to skim and refresh on that one as it would someone looking at it for the first time.
Here are the materials I brought to the exam in order of importance:
1. David’s Guidebook (25%)
a. Stayed on my desk the entire test and was my first reference for any calculation
2. Bourgoyne’s Drilling and Mitchell’s Drilling Book (20%)
a. I prefer Bourgoyne’s, but there were multiple word questions that are in Mitchell’s and not Bourgoyne’s.
3. 7 Volume Handbook Set
a. III Facilities (12.5%)
b. IV Production (7.5%)
c. I General Engineering (7.5%)
d. V Reservoir (2.5%)
e. II Drilling (2.5%)
f. VI Emerging Tech (0%)
4. Halliburton Red Book
5. Hyne’s Dictionary (5%)
6. John Lee’s Well Testing (5%)
7. Bassouni’s Well Logging (5%)
8. Baker Packer Calculation Handbook (3.75%)
9. Craft and Hawkins Applied Reservoir Engineering (1.25%)
10. McCain’s Petroleum Fluids (1.25%)
11. GPSA Engineering Data Book (1.25%)
12. Bing’s Binder (0%)
Even with these materials, there were ~5 questions that are completely out of left field and another ~10 problems that were challenging multi-step problems (>6 minutes/problem) that I setup and saved until the end as soon as I realized the complexity. I took the entire allotted time in both sessions, but had ample time to work the problems I knew how to do twice, make a quick jab at the ~10 multi-step problems, and make educated guesses with statistics on the ~5 wildcards.
I am in Texas and also passed! Thank you very much, David. I used your guidebook and worked many of your practice tests to prepare. How are you guys seeing the percentage score? Is it on the NCEES Website somewhere? I'm just seeing the green "passed" icon.
ReplyDeleteCongrats, you can check your percentage score here:
Deletehttps://engineers.texas.gov/exam_check_grades.php
Below is my feedback. Chem E degree, out of school for over a decade, passed the FE and PE exam in 2018 on first attempts.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is you won't walk out of this exam thinking you aced it, so don't expect that going into the exam. I felt like I had a decent chance of passing while walking out of the exam room, but then doubts crept in after thinking through a few of the problems and realizing I probably made an error.
Drilling, Reservoir, and Facilities seemed to be the bulk of the calculation problems. Facilities calculation problems were straightforward, Reservoir problems contained a few tricks, Drilling were the hardest.
Production and Completions seemed to be more theory problems.
The latest references were required for word problems (estimated 55% or more word problems) - Handbook Series 1-6 (added a Table of Contents for the entire series in the back of the guidebook to assist with finding the correct book (then index search each book) or chapter quickly), Fundamentals of Drilling Eng, Hyne, Redbook or equivalent (be familiar with it), Well Testing and Well Logging Textbook Series.
Timed myself at 10 problems per hour and didn't deviate. I skipped some problems during each hour, but went back before the hour was up to complete all 10. Rechecked problems if I finished early on the 10. You won't know how to solve all the problems and you won't be able to find an equation or reference, luck into the answer, or learn how to solve it during the exam...move on!
Thanks for the website David, it was the first online resource I found when beginning my study and helped a great deal.
SO...… WHAT WAS THE CUT SCORE? Anyone have an idea???
ReplyDeleteIt has to be between 65 and 70%
DeleteI'll start it off. Failed with a 38/80
DeleteFailed with a 69 from Texas here. Bummer.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any insight on what to expect for the 2019 Computer-based exam?
I understand that NCEES alludes to a handbook or reference manual by SPE to be used during the exam, but I haven't seen anything on the SPE website or the TBPE website.
According to the NCEES they will post the reference material around April 2019
DeleteThat really is a bummer! How many questions did you get correct? There should be a diagnostic on your NCEES account.
DeleteOn the NCEES website it says they will supply the reference manual, which I'm guessing is the one from SPE. I've also heard they would have to include "money quotes" at the very least from the handbooks. Not sure what's best to expect. Do you know what your raw score was from NCEES?
DeleteI still dont have my score....
DeleteOP Here--
DeleteThanks for the info. I look forward to seeing the publication this April (hopefully it's not like the guidebooks they currently have for sale on the SPE Bookstore--they're terrible IMO).
As for the NCEES score (correct), I got 38/80. The 69 is from the TBPE website. Facilities is evidently my weakness.
Back to the drawing board!
I also got a 38/80. I am not from Texas, so I can't see the adjusted score. It looks like you got a 69 adjusted score? Does this mean we were about 1 question away from passing?
DeleteI guess 39/80 was passing.
ReplyDeleteI suspect 39-40 was the cut off based on some of the feedback in this thread. One poster passed with an adjusted score of 70.
ReplyDelete39 makes sense based on info above but wow that is embarassing for petroleum- or a statement on the poor test questions. Getting less than half on a multiple choice exam can pass.......
ReplyDeleteOr inexperienced examinees. I wonder how many first time test takers had less than 4 years experience.
DeleteDid anyone get a 39/80 and not pass?
ReplyDeleteAny updates on cutoff from Bing?
ReplyDeleteIs Bing going to stop teaching a review course? Or Will you David begin teaching a review course like Bings?
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Bing will continue teaching. Regarding myself, I'm going to keep helping out where I can. Right now I don't feel a course is as useful as taking practice exams and practicing out of the Guidebook. However, we will have to see what the new resource looks like when it comes out.
DeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteCan you confirm the PE reference handbook for the 2019 exam. SPE bookstore has a manual called "2019 Update-SPE Engineering Certification and PE License Exam Reference Guide". I am assuming this will be the pdf reference given to us on exam day but just wanted to confirm before i purchase it. thanks
It's my understanding that's the one. But I don't have it yet. Who here has the update in hand?
Deletehttps://store.spe.org/2019-Update-SPE-Petroleum-Engineering-Certification-and-PE-License-Exam-Reference-Guide-P1112.aspx
Delete