In offshore drilling, BOP testing is a critical component of well barrier assurance. However, inconsistent processes across rigs can lead to incorrect line-ups, missed tests, and operational risk. This case study examines how the IPT Global Service Delivery Team supported an operator to improve BOP testing performance across a five-rig fleet in the Gulf of Mexico using SureTec® PressureTesting.
Across a five-rig fleet operating in the Gulf of America, incorrect line-ups (sometimes known as misalignments) during BOP tests occurred up to 60% of the time. The potential of executing BOP pressure tests with these errors increased safety risk and decreased operational efficiencies. The difference across rigs wasn’t equipment or operator. It was the consistency of the application of the well barrier assurance testing process by rig crews. The operator requested IPT Global’s support across the fleet to ensure a common baseline performance level was maintained across the rigs.
In offshore drilling operations, performance gaps between similar rigs working together with the same operator are common. Crew experience, familiarity with procedures, and operational maturity all vary. What doesn’t vary, however, is the consequence of a missed well barrier test. Incorrect line-ups undetected during BOP testing can leave critical components untested, create regulatory and environmental exposure, and compound into costly rig downtime.
To help establish a standardized approach, the IPT Global Real-Time Operations Center (RTOC) conducted a fleet-wide analysis of all BOP pressure tests over the course of one year. The results illustrate both the scale of the problem and the value of a consistent, technology-backed assurance framework, regardless of individual rig performance.
A fleet-wide analysis of 76 BOP pressure tests highlights both the scale of incorrect line-ups and the impact on offshore drilling performance.
When results are broken down by rig, the variance is stark and highlights a critical point: performance is driven by the consistent application of robust processes and assurance.
| Rig | No. of BOP Tests | Tests with Incorrect Line-ups | Missed Incorrect Line-ups Detected by RTOC | Lost Time (min) |
| Rig A | 17 | 59% | 5 tests (29%) | 270 |
| Rig B | 18 | 56% | 3 tests (17%) | 165 |
| Rig C | 8 | 13% | — | 5 |
| Rig D | 20 | 5% | — | 8 |
| Rig E | 13 | 0% | — | 0 |
The rigs with the lowest incorrect line-up rates share a common thread: a standardized, familiar process developed or supported by the IPT Global Service Delivery Team. Rig C operates with a full-time IPT Global Field Advisor supporting BOP testing execution and well barrier assurance processes embedded with the crew. The one incorrect line-up it recorded during the year was caught immediately by that IPT Global team member. Rig D had IPT Global Field Advisors on location for an extended period who helped build simplified, consistent test plans; the crew became deeply familiar with those plans, and the data reflects it. Rig E recorded zero incorrect line-ups across all 13 tests.
Rigs A and B tell a different story. Rig A recorded a total of 15 incorrect line-ups during BOP testing operations. This was the highest in the fleet and impacted 59% of its BOP tests, with the frequency trending upward as the year progressed. Rig A’s crew had recently been blended from two different drilling contractors, introducing unfamiliarity. IPT Global Field Advisors were not present onboard for BOP testing, though the IPT Global Service Delivery Team remotely identified five incorrect line-ups that were undetected by rig personnel. This accounted for three and a half hours of intervention time that would otherwise have resulted in undetected deviations.
Rig B showed a persistent failure at a specific test step with incorrect line-ups occurring in 56% of all tests, traceable to an incorrect cementer line-up that went uncorrected over multiple test cycles.
This is not a story about which rigs have better crews or stronger safety cultures. It is a demonstration of what happens when a standardized well barrier assurance and BOP testing process is applied consistently across a fleet, and what happens when it isn’t.
Every rig has its own dynamics: crew experience, contractor mix, familiarity with test plans, and operational culture and tempo. IPT Global does not override these dynamics. Instead, the SureTec PressureTesting software provides a standardized well barrier assurance framework for BOP testing, combining real-time monitoring, structured verification processes, and field expertise that operates independently of them.
Where a rig is already performing well, this approach reinforces and documents the behavior. Where performance is inconsistent, it identifies deviations early, before they become compliance events, safety incidents, or compounding downtime.
The data makes this clear. The eight incorrect line-ups missed by onboard crew but detected through real-time monitoring and structured BOP testing verification via PressureTesting and the IPT Global RTOC were identified through a consistent, structured process combining volume benchmarking, step-by-step checklist verification, and direct communication protocols, applied consistently and independently of rig floor activity.
Operators managing multiple assets simultaneously in offshore drilling operations face these same challenges at a larger scale. Performance varies, crews turn over, and experience levels differ. While a fleet-wide assurance program like SureTec PressureTesting does not remove these variables, it does establish a consistent baseline, ensuring performance gaps do not go undetected.
The rigs that performed best were not immune to incorrect line-ups. They were simply better equipped through familiarity, simplified plans, and consistent oversight to prevent or catch them early. IPT Global’s role is to extend that level of performance across the entire fleet, not just to those that have benefited from time and continuity.
A standardized approach to well barrier assurance is not a substitute for good rig culture. It is the mechanism that ensures good practice is applied consistently, regardless of where any individual rig sits on the performance curve.
Looking to improve BOP testing performance or strengthen your well barrier assurance processes? Contact IPT Global to implement a standardized, pressure testing and real-time monitoring framework across your offshore drilling fleet.
During a routine offshore BOP stump test, standard validation indicated acceptable results with no clear signs of failure. Pressure readings were stable, no alarms were triggered, and the system met conventional pass criteria.
However, traditional BOP pressure testing is designed to detect leaks, not subtle emerging issues. In this case, the system would likely have been cleared for deployment with an undetected integrity risk.
SureTec® PressureTesting TestEngine utilizing advanced leak detection analysis. Rather than relying solely on pass/fail thresholds, this approach evaluates:
This deeper analysis identified a subtle but consistent degradation in pressure trend; behavior inconsistent with a fully sealed system and easily overlooked using conventional methods.
Following the analysis:
By shifting the focus from “Did the test pass?” to “Does the data behave like a truly sealed system?”, the TestEngine analysis uncovered a developing leak that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Early leak detection enabled proactive intervention, delivering measurable value:
This case reinforces a critical insight into traditional well control operations: passing a BOP pressure test does not guarantee system integrity. Subtle leaks can evade standard validation methods, progress under real operating conditions, and lead to high-impact offshore failures if left undetected.
By moving beyond pass/fail testing and understanding how pressure behaves over time, operators can detect what others miss, protecting both operations and the bottom line.
Well barrier management — the process behind the design, implementation, and maintenance of barriers — is an essential part of any successful drilling operation. The more effective a well barrier is, the longer a well can operate unimpeded.
IPT Global showcased SureTec® WellSchematic, a cloud-based solution that simplifies wellbore schematic creation and barrier diagram generation, at the 2026 IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference in Galveston, Texas. It integrates visualizations, testing data, and collaborative processes into one solution, allowing users to visualize the full barrier envelope in real time.
In this video interview with Drilling Contractor Magazine on March 17, Cody MacDonald, Chief Technology Officer at IPT Global, discussed the insights that the software can provide.
Some digital pressure testing methods used in the oil and gas industry rely on predictive early data trends to draw conclusions about future performance. While these approaches may appear sophisticated, they often depend on assumptions that can be misleading. In safety-critical operations, the consequences of being wrong can be very dangerous.
At IPT Global, our approach is grounded in physics: how equipment actually behaves under pressure and an array of thermal variables. Our SureTec® PressureTesting Solution focuses on measurable system behavior rather than early-time trends and predictions, which provides greater assurance, protecting people, assets, and the environment.
During well control equipment pressure testing, a pressure decline can result from three distinct causes:
Why is this a problem? Because all three occur at the same time, and their combined effects appear as a single pressure curve making interpretation more challenging than it first appears.
Many digital pressure testing tools attempt to determine a pass or fail by observing how pressure decline slows over time. However, thermal and elastic effects naturally dominate early behavior and always attenuate. This early stabilization can create the appearance of improvement even when a real leak is present.
In short, early-time prediction alone does not confirm integrity, but rather introduces uncertainty at precisely the point where certainty is required.
Rather than predicting what might happen, IPT Global’s PressureTesting Solution models how a leak-free system should behave. We account for normal pressure changes caused by temperature and equipment expansion, establish a physics-based fingerprint for a healthy system, and evaluate subsequent tests against that baseline to identify true integrity failures.
Our focus is on delivering accurate, objective digital pressure testing results. In practice, that means fewer assumptions and clearer answers during the test itself. Instead of relying on trend-based prediction, we ask a more fundamental question: Does the observed behavior match that of a leak-free system?
A major offshore operator evaluated IPT Global’s physics-based PressureTesting Solution against a competing predictive pressure testing solution using real subsea BOP test data, including tests with confirmed visible leaks.
IPT Global correctly identified every known failure. The predictive solution, however, incorrectly passed multiple tests, including some with confirmed visible leaks.
A false pass, indicating equipment integrity when a failure exists, can expose operations to safety risks, environmental damage, unplanned downtime, and reputational harm.
Ultimately, when people, assets, and the environment are on the line, uncertainty should never be mistaken for insight. Physics-based analysis replaces assumption with understanding and delivers the confidence that safety-critical decisions demand.
If we all had one magical wish, many of us would choose the ability to see into the future—pick the right lottery numbers, avoid costly mistakes, or prevent accidents before they happen. But we don’t have that luxury. We never have.
Yet in well control equipment pressure testing, the industry relies on methods that attempt to predict future outcomes based on early-time trends. That raises an important question: why would we base assurance of critical safety barriers on a guess?
During BOP and Well Barrier Element (WBE) pressure tests, pressure decline is driven by three distinct physical mechanisms:
Only one of these—the integrity failure—is the condition we are trying to detect. The other two are benign, expected behaviors.
Mathematically, the observed pressure change can be expressed as:
ΔPObserved = ΔPThermal + ΔPElastic Expansion + ΔPIntegrity Failure
Each mechanism produces a unique pressure signature. In real operations, these signatures are superimposed, producing the single pressure curve we observe during a test. Accurately interpreting that curve requires understanding—and accounting for—these physical effects, not overlooking them.
Predictive analysis methods attempt to assess whether pressure loss is attenuating toward a leak-free system. The flaw is fundamental: thermal and elastic effects always dominate early-time behavior, and they always attenuate.
As a result, predictive methods often interpret early attenuation as improvement—creating a false sense of confidence. In early pressure test time, predictive analysis is not insight; it is inference based on incomplete physics.
There is no crystal ball. Early-time pressure test prediction is, by definition, a guess.
IPT Global does not attempt to predict the future. Instead, our PressureTesting solution with Thermally Compensated Leak Detection (TCLD) applies physics-based algorithms to establish a leak-free fingerprint for a specific BOP test configuration.
That fingerprint reflects the expected thermal and elastic response of the system. Subsequent tests on similar systems are then evaluated against this baseline to identify true integrity failures—quickly, objectively, and without relying on trend prediction.
So which approach would you trust: a black-box predictive trend or physics grounded in real behavior?
A major offshore operator compiled a dataset of more than 20 subsea BOP pressure tests from actual operations. The dataset included confirmed leaking tests—some identified visually by rig crews—and was used to evaluate both IPT Global’s PressureTesting and a competing predictive digital pressure testing solution.
The results were unambiguous:
Read that again. Predictive analysis passed tests that had already failed in the field, some with confirmed visual leaks.
These were not marginal cases or subjective interpretations. They were verified integrity failures that predictive software missed entirely—the exact outcome digital pressure testing is meant to prevent.
This is not an isolated result. Time and again, IPT Global’s physics-based PressureTesting solution has demonstrated superior accuracy by grounding interpretation in measurable system behavior rather than early-time trend speculation.
When IPT Global issues a pressure test pass, you can trust that your well control equipment or well barrier element is performing as intended.
When IPT Global issues a fail, you know you’ve identified a real problem—before it becomes a larger one.
The cost of a false pass is not just deferred downtime. It is a risk to people, assets, the environment, and the reputation of the operation itself.
SureTec PressureTesting reveals true leak signatures efficiently and objectively by isolating the physical behaviors that matter. This is not forecasting. It is physics-based, mathematically rigorous, and proven in the field where real consequences exist.
In digital pressure testing of Well Barrier Elements and Well Control Equipment, uncertainty should never be mistaken for insight. Predictive methods rely on early-time trends dominated by thermal and elastic effects, creating the illusion of improvement that disappears in late time.
IPT Global’s PressureTesting solution removes this ambiguity by accounting for all contributors to pressure decay in your specific system from the beginning of the test. The result is earlier, more reliable decisions based on understanding and proof—not a guess.
IPT Global: Industry leaders in digital pressure test accuracy and well barrier assurance.