It is problematical to say whether the current approach will result in more or less coverage than was available under the BFPD provisions.
The only substantive difference between paragraph (5) and the BFPD exclusion is the limitation of paragraph (5) to real property.
The purpose of paragraph (5) and its BFPD counterpart is to exclude only "that particular part" of property on which work is being performed by or on behalf of the insured.
is derived from the BFPD exclusion of damage "to that particular part of any property, not on premises owned by or rented to the insured, the restoration, repair or replacement of which has been made necessary by faulty workmanship thereon by or on behalf of the insured (emphasis added)." The versions of this "faulty workmanship" exclusion found in the BFPD provision and the 1986 and later editions of the CGL coverage forms differ in at least two ways.
First, the BFPD exclusion applies only to property away from premises owned by or rented to the insured, while the current exclusion applies to work being performed either on or off the insured's premises.
A second way in which paragraph (6) differs from its BFPD counterpart is that it is specifically stated not to apply to property damage within the products-completed operations hazard.
Some insurers have used the injury to products exclusion of the 1973 general liability policy, or the fictitious work/product exclusion, to deny completed operations losses that would otherwise have been covered under the insured's BFPD coverage.
The previous BFPD provisions, when arranged to include completed operations coverage, have a similar effect, which is accomplished by deletion of the injury to work performed exclusion found in the 1973 general liability forms.
In high potential wells like I-70, I-84 and I-085 which has the potentiality to produce high rate > 5000 BFPD
with high water cut >95%, The challenge that has been faced in design the ESP is the oil viscosity which if loaded to software, will result high head required which make you add additional stages accordingly high motor Hp and high cost but actually when we make a pilot test using the available ESP in the field we found that the total dynamic head required is not too 25% from what we got from the software, To overcome this problem, adjusting the water cut to get the actual required head which will be used as simulation case in the same wells in the area.