Exam Availability: Once a Year Next Test Date: October 8, 2025
If anyone would like some help or free advice before October, feel free to reach out to me. I like to discuss what's going on with the new generation. I only do it when I want to, so it's no bother at all.
https://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/petroleum/
Look forward to the first comment of 2025!
Hi Dave- Just want to say a big thank you for maintaining this site! I wasn't sure where to start until I came across your resources and the comments of those who have taken the test recently- incredibly helpful to start to break this bear into bites. It looks to me like Bing is no longer active as the winrock site is down and I didn't see anything this year about upcoming training- is that correct?
ReplyDeleteThanks for reaching out Steve. I thought Bing was going to find a heir, somebody to fill his shoes. One of the issues Bing had was the test is a very different beast than it was back when Bing started his class, so his quantitative style didn't match up with the more language-based modern exam. I tried to fill that gap with the Guidebook, but I did this when were allowed resources. It's a whole different exam today. For any more Q, feel free to reach out to me on Linked In or at my email mdavidgo. Thanks.
DeleteHi Dave, I'm taking the Texas PE Exam for Petroleum 8th October, and am going to start studying (almost) full time from now until then to give myself the best chance on passing it. However, I'm not sure what materials to purchase and study with. There's been a lot of different recommendations made over the years in this blog, but it'd be good to know what you recommend as the best/latest for 2025 (and to get comfortable with the CBT format).
ReplyDeleteCould you please recommend one complete list of study materials that a person taking the PE (Petroleum) Exam this year should have? FYI, I've looked online, but have only seen "School of PE" and "PPI2Pass".
Man thanks
I think SPE is going to do what they've always done: use the SPE Textbook Series & SPE Handbook Series. Focus on those. Especially the simple problems in both series.
DeleteWhen I said SPE I meant the NCEES. I have no inside information, but to be fair, NCEES uses SPE texts. And again, to be fair, NCEES shouldn't go deep in the weeds on anything too specific since it the test covers so many subjects. NCEES will likely stick to the basics. But make it hard as hell, of natch :-).
ReplyDeletePlease note comments they can't give too much specific information, like "...over half of the questions were on X, and involved Y". I really want to publish what you 'all have to say, but please be a general as possible so I can approve them. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHi David. Thanks for all your study materials to help prep for the test. I felt solid on what I felt was the big concepts but was surprised at the quantity of what I felt was very niche sort of knowledge on the exam. About 1/4 of the questions I’d say are things you only pick up going page by page in the SPE manual and even then you may not remember. There was also a number of problems made purposefully tricky with unit conversion. Unsure if I passed or not (I’d like to shake the hand of someone that is sure) but regardless thanks again - Jake S
ReplyDeleteDavid - I got the pass notice today. Thank you for all your materials and assistance. Even though I passed I still feel the same about the broadness and how the test could benefit from a narrower focus on engineering concepts versus spe textbook trivia. I was able to study full time for this for 6+ months and still felt it was on the edge for passing. Thanks again.
DeleteThank you for your kind words! It's why I wrote my Guidebook back in the day. I'm going to write a new digital version, and keep it very cheap. Thanks again for contributing!
DeleteI felt as ready as I could be studying Bing's material, your guidebook, and other sources. Many questions were straight forward, however I was dismayed that were niche topics, poorly worded questions, and some weird unit conversions. I was surprised that certain core topics were barely on the exam while other core topics were heavily represented. I don't think I had to recall any of the equations that I had memorized. I reckon they ought to run the questions through AI for clarity because I had to work several questions from multiple angles to determine a solution that could fit the choices. Or maybe the confusion was by design? I don't believe I passed and frankly given the questions I had issues with I don't think I could have prepared for them anyway, which is frustrating. I won't try again.
ReplyDeleteI felt prepared for the exam after using the NCEES practice exam, Olumayowa's conceptual questions, old Bing material, and this blog's resources. I certainly agree on the niche topics and detail/complexity of the non-core topics mentioned in other comments. I believe that test was much more difficult than the NCEES-provided practice exam and the scope of problems that I was mentally prepared for. I am unhappy with the confusing tricks used like poor wording and unconventional units/terms intended to mislead. Will try again next year if things don't turn out. Thanks for the guidance and platform to share knowledge, regardless.
ReplyDeleteGoing into the exam, it appears I was prepared, however part the exams appear to be extremely detail specific on some core knowledge and the other not too detailed part of the exam filled with more information that makes you want to second guess your answers.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the outcome may be for me, I thought I had study hard for this, it feels bad not sure if you would pass.
Studied the SPE handbooks (from Lake) and Olumayowa's questions bank, but it was definitely not adequate preparation for the exam. Absolutely way more multi-step detailed calculations than I was prepared for where the reference materials they give you aren't terribly useful, and also way too many niche/immaterial subjects covered that aren't truly relevant to petroleum practice.
ReplyDeleteI just don't get why this exam is so out of touch with the actual field of "petroleum engineering", and doesn't adjust their content and question difficulty to target a 60-70% minimum pass rate per year. The state licensing boards already make the determination if an applicant is sufficiently educated and experienced, and so pass rates at 30-40% clearly show a major disconnect.
I hope some overarching authoritative body takes a deep look at "Petroleum", and gets it in line quick. Otherwise, why even attempt to study for this exam? This message board shows how confusing it is when we can't even agree what to even study...
Just an FYI - NCEES & specifically the PE Testing Committee, who writes the questions and designs the tests, just recently completed a PAKS (Professional Activities and Knowledge Study) literally asking the petroleum industry what they felt was necessary and important for licensed petroleum engineers to know/understand only a couple years ago. We can ensure there is no disconnect. All of the questions are extremely well vetted to ensure they are understood and not subject to mis or double keys. Yes there may be some subjects that appear/feel to get more attention than others, but it is already a broad test covering drilling, production, completions, reservoir, facilities, and project management. It's a Principles & Practice Exam - it'll test doing calculations, and it'll test concepts that only apply for those who have had a minimal years of experience practicing as an engineer.
DeleteRead the above comment. Look, Petroleum is so broad a subject it's kind of a joke. I'm a ME, and if you take the PE for ME it's very clear what you need to know and not know. There is simply no way to do this with Petroleum. I have all the Handbook Series & Textbook Series, and it's just too broad. IMO the solution is to write 1,000 questions, publish them, and say every exam will be those questions (with just slight modifications). That way everyone know exactly what will be on the exam and it will test one's true knowledge.
DeleteClearly there is a huge disconnect between what the petroleum industry feels licensed engineers should know (see PAKS comment above) and what the test takers expect to see on the test. It appears as though the folks that come up with the questions won't acknowledge this either, seeing comments here from last year's exam and the PAKS comment above on this year's exam. I was literally blindsided by multiple questions. I remember thinking once, "Why would anyone derive this by hand in 2025? Many years ago, sure." In this case the reference manual was no help, nothing in Bing's material, nothing in David's material, nothing in the SPE practice exam, nor my own field / office related experience.
DeleteSo, the topics are both very broad and can be very deep too.
I definitely felt this exam was tough, but none of the calculation questions seemed unreasonable to do by hand if you truly understood the equations. I’ve been exposed to different domains and came across some topics on the test that I didn’t know personally, but I know colleagues who work in those areas.
DeleteI think it feels the way you described because of how broad the exam is, but that’s also what makes it a fair assessment. As engineers, we often sit in meetings with experts from other disciplines and need to understand enough to follow the discussion and contribute meaningfully.
So having taken this exam twice before this attempt, I thought I'd give my two cents. First, I found that there seemed to be a lot more calculation-based questions than before. As some of the previous posters had commented, some of the questions you had to do some conversions, but I never felt like anything was super over the top. Second, yes, there were definitely some really niche questions on the exam. I think the test makers would be much better off asking more board questions to test for an engineers knowledge of the subject matter than to ask for something that most folks wouldn't have even heard of.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel like I did better on this exam than the previous two exams, but I spent a lot of time really digging in and understanding all the fundamentals. It's true that there are not a lot of resources out there, but I did a combination of Olumayowa's conceptual questions, the NCEES practice exam (great for understanding some calculations), and oddly enough, youtube lectures on areas I wasn't super familiar with.
For those who are going to retake the exam, my biggest piece of advice is to know the reference guide inside and out. Be familiar with all the equations, be familiar where all the information is laid out. That being said, the test is not wholly married to the reference guide.. so you will have to have a lot of head knowledge on top of that.
I was literally blindsided by multiple questions. I remember thinking once, "Why would anyone derive this by hand in 2025? Many years ago, sure."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The best way to stud for the exam is to know the SPE Handbook and select SPE Textbooks well (the generic ones) as well as the Reference. I'm going to update the Guidebook in this vein.
I would say that I actually broadly agree with where the topics on the exam are now, having taken the test last week, with the exception of the niche topics and the depth of some of the niche topics. There were a couple of surprises that were spot on for what a PE should know, we could all agree, without going into any detail. I had not expected those types of questions but immediately recognized we should all know how to answer those and had a smile on my face. So not all negative, just there is a disconnect between test and test takers expectations on a significant part of the exam that I don't know who can resolve, or how it can be resolved.
DeleteFound out I did not pass, feel disappointed, I had put in some hard work into the preparation to compensate for the practical experience since I dont have much.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to those who passed.
Give it another shot! I'll be glad to work with you until the next exam; I do it to keep up-to-date in the industry. Don't hesitate to reach out at any time.
DeleteThank you mdavid, I use the information from this blog and other NCEES materials.
DeleteMy style of study usually heavily self thought, hopefully to remember to ask for help.
This my second attempt, i did well on the afternoon section but badly on the morning section, partly maybe due to my little practical experience I guess.
I agree with everyone else’s sentiments about the exam. It definitely felt out of touch with the field, and I think it fails to truly assess one’s knowledge. That said, I somehow managed to pass (still not sure how). I left the exam feeling cautiously optimistic, with sudden bouts of dread as I replayed some of the questions in my head.
ReplyDeleteIf this helps anyone, here’s how I prepared:
School of PE (On-Demand Course): I used it to build a broad, mile-wide, inch-deep foundation across all topics. It gave me enough coverage to identify my weak areas and build from there.
Exam Bank & SPE Reference Guide: Once I finished the review, I spent countless hours drilling questions from the School of PE exam bank and constantly referencing the SPE guide. Over time, I practically memorized the layout and could immediately recall where to find key equations.
Practice Exams: After getting comfortable with the reference guide, I worked through PE practice exams and used ChatGPT anytime I hit a topic I didn’t fully understand.
ChatGPT: I used it throughout my preparation to quickly refresh concepts or explore topics in depth. Even though its answers weren’t always perfect, I found that my growing knowledge base helped me spot any errors quickly, and that back-and-forth helped solidify my understanding.
I hope this can help anyone who comes across this and is preparing for the exam in the future.
Third time taking this exam - still failed. Very discouraging. I feel like the exam is more of a "try not to get fooled by our poorly worded, tricky question" test and not petroleum engineering. I'll probably try again next year. Glutton for punishment, I guess.
ReplyDeleteSubmitting in 2 sections as my comment is too long! Part 1/2:
ReplyDeleteI thought I would add a few comments on my experience- I was grateful to pass 1st time. I have 11 years of experience primarily in reservoir and production engineering. Here is what I had questions about before the exam and my impressions after taking it. Apologies that this is so long!
1) How the format has changed from the old version: After taking both the new NCEES practice test and the 2004/2005/2009 practice test, I agree 100% that the actual exam format followed the format of the new NCEES practice test closely. With that said, I still found the 2005 practice test to be VERY helpful in guiding which calculation problems I needed to work on. BUT: imho there is no need to practice getting these calculation problems under 6 minutes with the new format. I found that during the test I was routinely taking 8-12 minutes on calculation problems and still had 1 hr to check work in both the morning and afternoon sessions. As others have said, I would recommend using prep time you would’ve had to spend trying to get faster at calculations to INSTEAD focus on broader conceptual understanding of your weak areas, and DEEP understanding of the calculation questions you get wrong on both practice tests. I took NCEES practice ~6 weeks before the test and 2005 test 1 week before. I was stressed after the 2005 test because I was taking too long on the questions and my % correct was not as high as I would have liked- in the end there was no reason to stress out due to the differences in exam format.
2) As others have said, I recommend using the guidebook in your calculation practice. I found that several key formulas in the guidebook require prior knowledge to know how to apply- this website and a deep dive into calculation practice questions can clear this up very quickly.
3) Conceptual Prep: My weak areas are drilling and facilities. I started off by reading the SPE handbook vol II and sections of bourgoyne. I also took a couple classes that are offered at the company I work for. I found this to be a huge help- if you are privileged enough to have access to company training materials, using these to supplement prepping your weak areas can be huge. If you dont have access to company materials, the PE handbook series, petrowiki (though its not as easy to use as it used to be), and other texts listed on this site, would by my first go to. I imagine School of PE would also help in this case, but I can see why others say it is not worth the high cost if you are able to self study. I did not take the School of PE course. I also found that field experience informed my answers during the test- I would recommend taking any opportunity you have to gain field experience in your weak areas. I also agree that Olumayowa's book was a helpful guide on what to study but it is not critical.
Part 2/2:
ReplyDelete4) Calculation prep: As I mentioned above, a deep dive into what I missed in the practice tests using multiple sources (especially this site) proved valuable. I agree with David’s comments that the 2005 test and calculation questions on the NCEES test (and related questions on this site or other sources for extra practice in weak areas) are sufficient for calculation practice.
5) Test strategy: I found writing down the time I started each calculation question helped as a reminder to keep moving if I got bogged down. There were ~4 or 5 questions (or more- it’s a blur now) that I really wanted to keep working because I felt like I was close but had to force myself to put in the best answer I could and move on after 12 mins or so. I found that the lunch break was critical for me. I was a complete zombie for the first 20 minutes after finishing the morning session. After taking the full 50 minute lunch I felt at least a little recharged, though I still had to focus a little harder in the afternoon session to avoid silly mistakes. Also- keep an eye on those UNITS. Staying organized in my scratch notepad was critical for me- many of the silly mistakes I discovered were because I was rushing and was not keeping my variables, numbers, and units organized on the pad.
6) Niche questions: There were quite a few questions I ran across where my first impression was “YIKES I know nothing about this… panic panic”. I found that the answer choices were key for several of these questions- the wrong answers can be eliminated because they don’t pass the general engineering sniff test regardless of the wording of the question itself. I think this may be an intentional strategy to test general engineering sense? So I guess my advice is… don’t panic until AFTER you read through and consider all the answer choices.
Thanks to all the previous test takers who provided input on this site, and especially to David for maintaining what seems to be the only resource left for this test!
I figured I’d share my experience after taking the PE exam for the first time (which I passed).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the test was reasonable in scope. Given my background primarily in stimulation, I lacked some practical knowledge in drilling and facilities, but felt very comfortable with production and completion, reservoir, and economics and management. Over my 8 years of experience, I’ve been fortunate to work across several domains from offshore frac packs, matrix and frac acidizing, to core analysis and fluid flow theory and research. I also have a strong understanding of the theoretical equations used in pressure build-up and reservoir modeling, which I learned independently using open-source software. Much of my downtime at work is have spent reading SPE papers, which exposed me to many topics.
Study Plan
The first thing I did was take the NCEES practice exam to benchmark where I stood. I scored 48%, with my weakest area being drilling and facilities. I didn’t review the individual questions I missed. I just noted which topics they came from.
Next, I worked through Olumayowa’s book, focusing on the questions I didn’t know. Even if I got a question correct, if I couldn’t explain why the other options were wrong, I dug deeper into the topic. I found this book to be a good tool to expose me to the full breadth of material.
Then I worked through David’s exams (2016, 2018, and 2021), again ensuring I understood both the calculations and the underlying theory. His problems were extremely helpful, but the real value came from understanding the reasoning behind each solution.
A week before the exam, I retook the NCEES practice test to gauge my progress. I scored 88% and finished in six hours. This time, I carefully reviewed the questions I missed and realized four of them were simply from not reading carefully enough.
The Monday before the exam, I reviewed the topics I had missed, even reaching out to our PVT expert at work to clarify a few things I was struggling with. The day before the test, I went through the NCEES exam again, not solving problems but mentally reviewing why each answer was correct and why the others were not. For calculation problems, I would identify which formula I would use and make sure I could keep units consistent.
Exam Day
On test day, I felt confident overall. There were about three questions that truly stumped me, and the conceptual drilling questions were definitely the hardest part (again, not my strongest area or interest). Surprisingly, I felt good about the facilities section. Many questions were similar to those in Olumayowa’s and David’s materials, just framed differently and oftenbgad thought of this question myself as i studied.
The calculation problems felt straightforward after spending so much time understanding the “why” behind each one. Around hour six, I started to lose focus and found questions tougher, which I attribute to not doing a full 8-hour mock exam beforehand, which looking back was a terrible choice.
Final Thoughts
Overall, I thought the exam was challenging but fair. There were definitely questions I didn’t know, but I could often eliminate options leaning on engineering and physics fundamentals to improve my odds. None of the questions felt unreasonable, but I expected to encounter a few I would need to give my best educated guess on.
I took the PE. I paid for the School of PE prep course. I found the School of PE didn’t cover the niche topics. I was extremely well versed in the contents of School of PE. Each subject area for School of PE has maybe 300 pages of slides and practice problems for each section with knowledge checks in the slides. School of PE came with flash cards for each section, 300 question problem bank, and Olumayowa PE practice bank. I was really well versed into the problems. I was pretty much getting 90% on all the practice problems I was doing in the prep course. I didn’t pass. I thought there were too many areas that weren’t covered in my prep course and a lot of multi step calculations that I wasn’t expecting as much. I read through school of PE notes many times, ran through flash cards many times, and ran through Olumayowa book a couple times. I agree with a lot of other comments. I think the scope of the exam is too broad. My strongest area going into the PE was likely facilities and found that most of those calculations weren’t even in there. All of facilities questions were pretty much conceptual based. I think if I knew about this blog, I would have done a different approach. I’ve heard people in the blog mention that David has 2016, 2018, and 2021 exam practice. Is that part of the PE Guidebook?
ReplyDeleteFirst, want to thank David and the community for keeping this discussion active over the years; prior appropriate commentary, while maybe non-specific, is what I relied on undertaking this endeavor with very limited context. Found out that I passed, first time, with a non-petroleum degree, and ‘robust’ industry experience in only a single exam discipline (drilling).
ReplyDeleteThe advice that I’d share with future test-takers is to become familiar with all topics outlined as fair game, focusing more on conceptual understanding, coupled with very thorough SPE Reference Guide review. However still, anticipate questions that would never cross your preparation path, as the exam seems as much of an aptitude test, requiring on-the-spot ingenuity.
Best wishes to all those in the future, it’s not to be underestimated.
- JM Novinski