Cocurrent and Countercurrent Imbibition

in a Water-Wet Matrix Block

Mehran Pooladi-Darvish, SPE,* and Abbas Firoozabadi, SPE, Reservoir Engineering Research Inst.

Summary
Imbibition in water-wet matrix blocks of fractured porous media
is commonly considered to be countercurrent. The modeling stud-
ies of this paper indicate that when a matrix block is partially
covered by water, oil recovery is dominated by cocurrent imbibi-
tion, not countercurrent. It is also found that the time for a speci-
fied recovery by the former can be much smaller than that by
countercurrent imbibition. Consequently, use of the imbibition
data by immersing a single block in water and its scale-up may
provide pessimistic recovery information. Moreover, it is shown
that the application of the diffusion equation for modeling of oil
recovery by cocurrent imbibition leads to a large error. Through a
detailed study of the governing equations and boundary condi-
tions, significant insight is provided into the mathematical and
physical differences between co- and countercurrent imbibition.
The above experimental studies13,14 show that there are signifi-
cant recovery differences between co- and countercurrent imbibi-
tion. To our knowledge, there is currently no theoretical study
comparing the two imbibition processes. The major objective of
this paper is to study the similarities and differences of co- and
countercurrent imbibition and point out the consequences for
practical applications. In the following, we first investigate the
equations and boundary conditions for countercurrent and cocur-
rent imbibition. A numerical model is then developed to compare
the behavior and recovery efficiency of the two processes. Scaling
studies are used to draw general conclusions.
Mathematical Investigation
The one-dimensional 共1D兲 countercurrent imbibition process can
be described by a nonlinear diffusion equation1 of the form

Introduction
⳵
⳵x 冉
D共 Sw兲
⳵Sw
⳵x
⫽
⳵Sw
⳵t
,冊 共1兲
Countercurrent imbibition, in which water and oil flow through
where
the same face in opposite directions, has received considerable
attention in the literature. The mathematical formulation of coun- k k ro dP c
tercurrent imbibition is of the form of a nonlinear diffusion D 共 S w 兲 ⫽⫺ f 共Sw兲 共2兲
␾ ␮o dS w
equation.1 Analytical and semianalytical solutions of countercur-
rent imbibition have been recently emphasized.2-4 These solutions and
assume a semi-infinite domain and are valid before the saturation
1
front reaches the far boundary. f 共 Sw兲⫽ . 共3兲
Much experimental work on countercurrent imbibition has k ro ␮ w
1⫹
been reported in the literature. In these experiments, the oil- k rw ␮ o
saturated cores are either immersed in water, or sealed such that
water in-flow and oil out-flow occur through the same faces.5-10 The initial and boundary conditions are
Some imbibition studies have reported oil production from a face S w ⫽S wi , t⫽0, 0⭐x⭐L, 共4兲
not covered with water 共i.e., cocurrent imbibition兲.6,8,11,12 The ma-
jority of these studies were inconclusive regarding the differences S w ⫽1⫺S or , t⫽0 ⫹ , x⫽0, 共5兲
between cocurrent and countercurrent imbibition. In a detailed ⫹
q w ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽L. 共6兲
experimental study, Bourbiaux and Kalaydjian13 examined the
cocurrent and countercurrent imbibition processes on a laterally The symbols are defined in the nomenclature. Eq. 1 assumes that
coated core. When the two opposing faces of a cylindrical core the fluids are incompressible, and the effect of gravity is ne-
were open to flow, and water was in contact with one face, oil was glected. The diffusion coefficient of Eq. 2 is bell shaped with
mostly produced by cocurrent imbibition from the face in contact respect to water saturation, attaining a value of zero at S wi and S or
with oil; oil production from the water-contacted face was very 共see Ref. 2兲. Eq. 5 expresses the continuity of capillary pressure at
small—about 3%. The authors expressed uncertainty about the the inlet face ( P c ⫽0), and Eq. 6 is the no-flow boundary condi-
source of this oil. It was not clear if this small amount was pro- tion at the outlet.
duced from the rock, or was the oil from the dead volume. The Formulation of cocurrent imbibition includes an additional con-
countercurrent experiment had a slower recovery than the cocur- vective term2

冉 冊
rent experiment; the half-recovery time for cocurrent imbibition
was 7.1 hours and that for countercurrent imbibition was 22.2 ⳵ ⳵Sw ⳵Sw
D共 Sw兲 ⫺q t f 共 S w 兲 ⫽ , 共7兲
hours, for one set of experiments. The measured saturation pro- ⳵x ⳵x ⳵t
files for the two processes were also different. where the functions D and f are given by Eqs. 2 and 3, respec-
In a recent experimental study, a stack of Berea and chalk tively. In Eq. 7, q t ⫽q o ⫹q w is unknown, and an additional equa-
matrix blocks were used to study water injection in fractured po- tion, i.e., the pressure equation, with initial and boundary condi-
rous media.14 Visual observation and recovery data from a num- tions is required to complete the formulation.
ber of tests revealed that 共1兲 the injected water did not fill the Some studies of the imbibition process have assumed that the
fracture space surrounding the matrix blocks rapidly, and 共2兲 the pressure gradient in the displaced oil phase may be neglected.15-17
recovery mechanism was mainly cocurrent imbibition before a This assumption is based on the common practice in hydrology,
block was fully covered by water. Once the rock was covered by where the mathematical formulation of unsaturated water flow
water, the oil recovery rate decreased due to low efficiency of ignores the air pressure gradient 共see Ref. 18 for an account of this
countercurrent imbibition. assumption兲. Under this assumption, the problem is formulated19
as in Eq. 1 with initial and boundary conditions 4 to 6. However,
*Now at the U. of Calgary. the corresponding diffusion coefficient is
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers k k rw dP c
Original SPE manuscript received for review 27 February 1997. Revised manuscript re- D 共 S w 兲 ⫽⫺ . 共8兲
ceived 16 March 1999. Paper (SPE 38443) peer approved 30 August 1999. ␾ ␮ w dS w

SPE Journal 5 共1兲, March 2000 1086-055X/2000/5共1兲/3/9/$5.00⫹0.50 3

 The diffusion coefficient of Eq. 8 does not exhibit the bell-
shape behavior of Eq. 2. In the absence of pressure gradients in TABLE 1– DATA FOR THE BASE CASE EXAMPLE
the displaced phase, this formulation applies to both co- and coun-
L 20 cm (0.2 m) no 4.0
tercurrent imbibition. The boundary condition 6 is valid for cocur-
k 20 md (0.02 ␮ m2 ) nw 4.0
rent imbibition because imbibition continues so long as the water
␮o 1 cp (1 mPa•s) 0
k ro 0.75
pressure inside the core is less than that outside, and no water
breakthrough will occur. Eqs. 1, 4–6, and 8 may be good approxi- ␮w 1 cp (1 mPa•s) 0
k rw 0.2
mations for unsaturated flow, where viscosity of the displaced ␾ 0.3 B 1.45 psi (10 kPa)
nonwetting phase 共i.e., air兲 is much smaller than the displacing Si 0.001
viscosity, water. It will be shown later that for the water/oil sys-
tem, where oil and water viscosity can be of the same order, the
oil pressure gradient may not be neglected.
Note that the only difference in the mathematical description of
co- and countercurrent imbibition, i.e., Eqs. 9–18, is related to the
inlet and outlet boundary conditions of the oil phase. It will be
Numerical Model pointed out later how this difference leads to the absence or pres-
As mentioned, the analytical solution for countercurrent imbibi- ence of the convective term in Eqs. 1 and 7, respectively.
tion is limited to an infinite-acting solution, that is, before water In order to accurately incorporate the boundary conditions in
the numerical model, the space discretization was performed us-
saturation is raised at the outer boundary, x⫽L. Therefore, we
ing the control volume approach.23 For the base case, a 1D matrix
need a numerical model for the general case; 1D and two-
dimensional 共2D兲 finite-difference models were developed to block with absolute permeability of 20 md (0.02 ␮ m2) and length
study counter- and cocurrent imbibition in finite-size porous me- of 20 cm 共0.2 m兲 is considered. Oil and water viscosity values are
dia. Peaceman and co-workers’ approach20-22 was used where the 1 cp 共1 mPa•s兲. The relative permeability and imbibition capillary
continuity equation is coupled with the generalized form of Dar- pressure functions are expressed by
cy’s law for two-phase flow to obtain k ro ⫽k ro
0
共 1⫺S 兲 n o , k rw ⫽k rw
0
S nw, 共19兲

冉
“ k
k ro
␮o 冊
ⵜp o ⫽⫺ ␾
dP c ⳵ t
⫺
⳵t 冉
dS w ⳵ p o ⳵ p w
, 冊 共9兲 P c 共 S 兲 ⫽⫺B ln共 S 兲 ,
where S is the normalized saturation 共see the nomenclature兲. The
共20兲

冉 冊 冉 冊
0 0
k rw dS w ⳵ p o ⳵ p w parameters k ro , k rw , n o , n w , and B, are constant. Table 1 gives
“ k ⵜp w ⫽ ␾ ⫺ . 共10兲 the values considered for the base case example.
␮w dP c ⳵ t ⳵t
Inlet Boundary Conditions. For countercurrent imbibition, the
The initial and boundary conditions are considered for a physical
choice of zero-capillary pressure is well accepted because of the
problem in which the viscous forces have no effect and flow is
continuity of the capillary pressure at the imbibition face; oil pro-
purely capillary-driven. Consider a cylindrical core at irreducible
water saturation, closed all around except one 共two兲 end face共s兲
that is 共are兲 open to flow. First, consider countercurrent imbibi-
tion, in which the only open end is initially in contact with the oil
at the ambient pressure, say, zero pressure. The water pressure in
the core is given by the capillary pressure relationship, which at
t⫽0 leads to p w ⫽p o ⫺ P c (S wi )⫽⫺ P c (S wi ). The imbibition be-
gins when the oil outside the core in the open end is replaced by
water at the ambient pressure. If we assume P c ⫽0 at this face,
both the oil and water pressures will be zero at the inlet, for t
⫽0 ⫹ . 共This boundary condition is detailed later.兲 Water will im-
bibe into the core due to the low water pressure in the core, and
oil flows out of the core from the same face. These conditions are
represented by Eqs. 11–16.
p o ⫽0, t⫽0, 0⭐x⭐L, 共11兲
p w ⫽⫺ P c 共 S wi 兲 , t⫽0, 0⭐x⭐L, 共12兲
p w ⫽0, t⫽0 ⫹ , x⫽0, 共13兲
⫹
q w ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽L, 共14兲
⫹
p o ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽0, 共15兲
⫹
q o ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽L. 共16兲
For cocurrent imbibition, consider a situation in which the oil
pressure at both ends of the core is initially fixed at zero, for
example, by exposing it to oil at the ambient pressure. Water at
the ambient pressure is then introduced at one end. Water will be
imbibed into the core and oil might be produced from one or two
end faces depending on the inlet boundary condition, for which
we consider either of the following two cases; zero-capillary pres-
sure, Eq. 17a or zero-oil flow, Eq. 17b. The corresponding initial
and boundary conditions are given by Eqs 11–14 and 17 and 18:
p o ⫽0, t⫽0 ⫹ , x⫽0, 共17a兲
⫹
q o ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽0, 共17b兲
Fig. 1–Oil and water pressure vs. distance for 1D counter-
⫹
p o ⫽0, t⫽0 , x⫽L. 共18兲 current imbibition.

4 M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000
Fig. 2–Saturation distribution for 1D countercurrent imbibition.
duction begins by the appearance of oil drops on the rock surface
covered by water. Ref. 24 provides a vivid picture of the process
in several figures. Since the diameter of water drops on the rock
surface are much larger than the mean-pore radius, capillary pres-
sure is nearly zero.25 Visual observations show that when the
water level in the fractures around a matrix block is rising and oil
is predominantly being produced from the faces in contact with
the oil 共i.e., cocurrent imbibition兲, some of the oil is expelled
through the water-contacted surfaces.11,14 Hence, a similar argu-
ment to that of countercurrent imbibition would require P c ⫽0 at
the water-contacted surface 共Eqs. 13 and 17a兲. Another plausible
boundary condition is the no-oil flow boundary condition at the
inlet, Eq. 17b. We have tested both of the boundary conditions in
our numerical model and observed little difference in the recovery
performance. For the sake of brevity, the results presented in the
paper are based on P c ⫽0 at the inlet, which is in line with our
visual observations.14 The effect of the no-oil flow boundary con-
dition is presented in Fig. 6 共to be discussed later兲.
Validation. The numerical model was validated against the ana-
lytical solution of countercurrent imbibition.2 The saturation and
pressure profiles and the recovery 共based on total recoverable oil
in place; ultimate recovery would always be 1兲 from the analytical
model are shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 5, and are compared with the
numerical solution with 300 gridblocks. In all the figures, a close
match is observed.
For comparison, the recovery curve with 50 gridblocks is
shown in Fig. 5. The recovery at the early time is overestimated
somewhat by the coarser grid, and the saturation plots 共not shown兲
indicate a limited numerical dispersion. All the 1D results pre-
sented are performed using 300 gridblocks and the 2D calcula-
tions with 50⫻50 gridblocks. A small effect of numerical disper-
sion was observed in the 2D calculations due to the coarse grids.
1D Results
In this section, the behavior of the 1D countercurrent and cocur-
rent imbibition is illustrated using the numerical model described
above.
M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks
Fig. 3–Oil and water pressure vs. distance for 1D cocurrent
imbibition.
Co- and Countercurrent Imbibition. Pressure and saturation
profiles of countercurrent imbibition are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
As shown in Fig. 1, at t⫽0 ⫹ , the oil pressure inside the core is
high. As time progresses, the oil pressure decreases approaching
zero at very long times. Water pressure follows the reverse trend.
Fig. 1 indicates that oil and water pressures are constant beyond
the saturation front and are independent of position. One may
conclude that countercurrent imbibition exhibits an infiniteacting
behavior, and the solution does not depend on length L before the
saturation front reaches the far boundary. This is exactly true
when the initial water saturation is equal to irreducible water satu-
ration, S wi ⫽S iw , and is a good approximation when S wi ⬎S iw
共Ref. 4兲.
In Fig. 1, oil and water exhibit very sharp pressure gradients at
the inlet end and at the front, respectively, where the correspond-
ing relative permeability values are small. Fig. 1 indicates that
oil-phase pressure drop is smaller than the water phase, but the
steep oil pressure profile at the inlet suggests that neglecting the
local oil pressure gradient15-17 might not be appropriate. Fig. 5
shows that recovery is significantly overestimated when the oil-
phase pressure gradient is neglected.
The pressure and saturation profiles for 1D cocurrent imbibi-
tion are depicted in Figs. 3 and 4. Clear differences can be no-
ticed with countercurrent imbibition. Oil and water pressures are
not constant downstream of the saturation front; they vary with
time and position. Contrary to countercurrent imbibition, cocur-
rent imbibition does not show an infinite-acting behavior, because
oil pressure feels the effect of the far boundary even before the
saturation front reaches the far boundary. Moreover, oil pressure
is not monotonic; it passes through a maximum in the two-phase
region. Behind the maximum, oil flows in the opposite direction
of water. A similar behavior was observed in an early study of
two-phase flow in porous media.26
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000 5

Fig. 4–Saturation distribution for 1D cocurrent imbibition.
Fig. 5–Recovery for 1D countercurrent imbibition.
6 M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks
Fig. 6–Recovery for 1D co- and countercurrent imbibition.
Comparison of Figs 2 and 4 suggests that saturation profiles
advance further in cocurrent imbibition compared with that in
countercurrent imbibition, which shows the superiority of cocur-
rent over countercurrent imbibition. Cocurrent imbibition takes
advantage of oil pressure gradient downstream of the front in the
single-phase region, and results in an increased recovery rate.
Heuristically, there is a contribution of a convective term for
cocurrent imbibition in Eq. 7. For countercurrent imbibition, due
to the no-flow boundary conditions at the outlet, the convective
term is zero everywhere, q t ⫽q o ⫹q w ⫽0, and Eq. 7 simplifies to
Eq. 1. Physically, in cocurrent imbibition, oil is produced down-
stream of the water front through the single-phase region, whereas
in countercurrent imbibition, oil flows through the two-phase re-
gion, reducing oil recovery efficiency.
The recovery performance of co- and countercurrent imbibition
is depicted in Fig. 6. If the residual oil saturations for co- and
countercurrent imbibition are equal, as assumed here, recovery
curves at very late time approach the same value—1. At earlier
times, however, especially before the saturation front reaches the
far boundary, there is a substantial difference between the two
curves. For example, the half-recovery time for countercurrent
imbibition is more than five times that of cocurrent imbibition.
We used the same relative permeability curves for co- and
countercurrent imbibition. Several studies suggest that due to vis-
cous coupling between the flowing phases, relative permeability
curves for the two processes could be different.13,27 Fig. 7 shows
the recovery curve for countercurrent imbibition when relative
permeability curves are reduced by 30%.13 Half-recovery time for
countercurrent imbibition is then 32 days, compared with 4.5 days
for cocurrent imbibition.
Fig. 6 also shows the contribution of oil recovery from the face
in contact with water 共the other face is in contact with oil兲. The
contribution of the backflow production at a recovery of 80% is
less than 5%, a large portion of the backflow recovery is obtained
at a very early time. Very fine grid studies with small time steps
indicate the early high backflow is a characteristic of the
process.26 The small recovery from the inlet face suggests that if a
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000
 Fig. 7–Scaling for 1D co- and countercurrent imbibition.
no-oil flow boundary condition is imposed 共Eq. 17b兲, there will be
only a small change in the recovery performance. This is clearly
observed in Fig. 6.
The results presented above show that oil recovery by cocur-
rent imbibition is much faster than by countercurrent imbibition.
The scaling studies of the following section will show that this
conclusion is not limited to the data used for the base case ex-
ample.
Scaling Studies. Rapoport28 presented the scaling criteria for
two-phase incompressible flow through porous media. Using in-
spectional analysis of the differential equations of water/oil flow
through porous media, he found that saturation distribution is a
function of dimensionless time provided certain similarities are
present. Rapoport’s dimensionless time is given by
t D⫽
kt dP c
冏
␾␮ w L 2 dS w S *
w
. 共21兲
The parameter S w* is any characteristic saturation. In our calcula-
tion we used S w* ⫽1⫺S or , such that dP c /dS w 兩 S * ⫽B. We varied
w
the value of absolute permeability k, length L, derivative of the
capillary pressure curve with respect to water saturation at S w* ,
and water viscosity ␮ w 共at a constant viscosity ratio兲. Some of the
results are depicted in Fig. 7, which shows that the above scaling
law applies to both co- and countercurrent imbibition, and all the
data fall on a pair of curves. Results of other cases, not shown
here, fall on the same pair of curves. The results also indicate that
the contribution of the back-flow production is independent of
length 共and the other parameters兲, and remains at about 5% 共not
shown兲.
To compare the time scales of the two imbibition processes, a
dimensionless time ratio is defined as the time ratio of counter-
current to cocurrent imbibition to achieve a specific recovery; the
results are plotted in Fig. 8 by the solid line. At the very early
time, the recovery performance of co- and countercurrent imbibi-
tion is similar, and the time ratio is equal to 1. The time ratio
increases rapidly such that half-recovery time for countercurrent
imbibition is more than five times that of cocurrent imbibition.
M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks
Fig. 8–Comparison between 1D co- and countercurrent imbibi-
tion.
After the saturation front reaches the far boundary, at about 50%
recovery for countercurrent imbibition, the recovery rate de-
creases drastically 共see Fig. 7兲. For cocurrent imbibition, however,
the saturation front does not reach the far boundary until about
70% recovery. Hence, the time ratio between the two processes
increases sharply in this interval. Beyond this time, the recovery
rate for cocurrent imbibition drops, and the time ratio decreases.
Fig. 8 indicates that for the most part, oil recovery for cocurrent
imbibition is more than four times faster than the countercurrent
imbibition. Note that the data labeled as base case in Fig. 8 en-
compass all the variations shown in Fig. 7.
Sensitivity Studies. In the following, the effects of some of the
variables that are not included in Rapoport’s scaling law are in-
vestigated. These include the oil and water relative permeability
exponents, viscosity ratio, and initial water saturation. The effect
of these parameters is most obvious on the saturation and pressure
profiles 共not shown here兲. When the water and oil exponents were
individually reduced to 2, the saturation gradients at the water
front and at the inlet were reduced, respectively. When the initial
water saturation was increased to S i ⫽0.2, a tongue was observed
at the leading edge of the saturation front. This behavior in coun-
tercurrent imbibition was previously studied by Barenblatt et al.25
The scaling study of the previous section suggests that a pair of
recovery curves, similar to those of Fig. 7, can be presented for
each of the above cases. These, of course, will be independent of
the parameters included in Eq. 21. From such recovery calcula-
tions, co- and countercurrent imbibition are compared and the
results are shown in Fig. 8. Again, a large difference between the
two processes is observed. Among the parameters varied, the ex-
ponent of oil relative permeability has the largest effect 共see the
thin-dashed line in Fig. 8兲.
It is interesting to note that the time ratio at large recoveries
approaches 4. All parameters being the same, a four-time perme-
ability increase is required for co- and countercurrent imbibition
to behave similarly at high recoveries. The high recoveries of Fig.
8 are at extremely low rates.
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000 7
 Fig. 9–Effect of length on 1D cocurrent imbibition. Fig. 10–Recovery for 2D co- and countercurrent imbibition.

Length Effect. Fig. 4 indicates that the oil pressure gradient

downstream of the front depends on the length of the core, seem- By varying the parameters in Eq. 21, we tested the scaling law
ingly suggesting that the superiority of cocurrent imbibition over of Rapoport28 in the 2D geometry. Similar results to the 1D case
countercurrent imbibition reduces as the length of the core in- are obtained 共not shown here兲. Thus, Figs. 10 and 11 can be used
creases. Here, we demonstrate that this conclusion is incorrect, for other 2D systems, if the required similarities are met. Time in
and as shown in Fig. 7, the superiority is independent of the
length. Fig. 9 shows the total oil produced for co- and counter-
current imbibition for a cross-sectional area of 1 cm2 (0.0001 m2)
and lengths of 20, 100, and 1000 cm 共0.2, 1, and 10 m兲. Fig. 9
indicates that as the length of the core increases, oil production for
cocurrent imbibition decreases at any time, and approaches that of
countercurrent imbibition. In fact, for the time considered in Fig.
9, most of the oil is produced due to backflow when the core is
1000 cm 共10 m兲 long. The answer is evident by realizing that for
longer cores a longer time scale should be considered to achieve a
fixed dimensionless time. The superiority of cocurrent vs. coun-
tercurrent imbibition for any specific rock and fluid property is a
function of dimensionless time only 共see Fig. 7 or 8兲. For the
longer samples in Fig. 9, the large difference between co- and
countercurrent imbibition will be observed at later times.

2D Results
In the previous section, co- and countercurrent imbibition were
studied for a 1D geometry. In this section, we examine them in a
2D medium. The base case properties are used for a square porous
medium 关the dimensions are 20⫻20 cm (0.2⫻0.2 m) and very
long兴. The left and bottom faces are in contact with water at
ambient pressure, and the top and right faces are either closed or
in contact with oil at the ambient pressure for counter- and cocur-
rent imbibition, respectively.
Co- and Countercurrent Imbibition. Fig. 10 displays the recov-
ery curve for the two processes. Similar to the 1D case, cocurrent
imbibition is more efficient than countercurrent imbibition. At t
⫽4 days, oil recoveries for co- and countercurrent imbibition are
70 and 37%, respectively. Recovery due to backflow production
for the cocurrent imbibition is about 5%. Fig. 11 depicts the time
ratio for the two imbibition processes. Figs. 10 and 11 for 2D
imbibition are similar to Figs. 7 and 8 for 1D imbibition with Fig. 11–Comparison between 2D co- and countercurrent imbi-
minor differences. bition „base case….

8 M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000
Fig. 12–Oil velocity distribution for 2D countercurrent imbibi-
tion.
Figs. 10 and 11 should then be replaced by the corresponding
dimensionless values.
In order to study further the similarities and the differences
between 1D and 2D imbibition, the saturation, pressure, and ve-
locity profiles of the 2D imbibition were examined. Study of satu-
ration profiles indicate that similar to the 1D case, there are high
gradients at the inlet and at the front 共results not shown兲. Water
and oil pressures have high gradients at the front and at the inlet,
respectively. Figs. 12 and 13 show oil velocity distributions for
countercurrent and cocurrent imbibition, respectively. 共The arrows
in Figs. 12 and 13 show the velocity magnitude.兲 Oil velocity
profiles, especially for the cocurrent process shown in Fig. 13,
indicate that oil rates are higher where there is small distance
between the water front and the open face. As the saturation front
moves from the bottom to the top, oil is mostly produced from the
right face. This is in contrast with the 1D problem, where oil is
either produced from the inlet or has to flow the length of the core
to be produced from the opposing end.
M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks
Fig. 13–Oil velocity distribution for 2D cocurrent imbibition.
Superposition. Experimental and mathematical studies of 1D im-
bibition cannot be used for multidimensional predictions due to
lack of geometric similarity, a requirement from the scaling law of
Rapoport. Superposition of 1D solutions to 2D and three-
dimensional solutions 共3D兲 has been suggested to address this
point,16 although superposition does not hold for nonlinear prob-
lems. Figs. 14 and 15 show the comparison between the recovery
obtained from the superposition of 1D solutions to 2D with the
results of 2D calculations for co- and countercurrent imbibition.
The 1D and 2D calculations are performed using 50 gridblocks.
These figures indicate that a good approximation is obtained at
early times, however, the late-time behavior is significantly over-
predicted by the superposition solution.
Discussion
In a water-wet naturally fractured reservoir, the matrix blocks
experience an advancing fracture-water level 共FWL兲. This study
points out that so long as the parts of the rock surface are in
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000 9
 Fig. 15–Superposition for countercurrent imbibition.
Fig. 14–Superposition for cocurrent imbibition.

contact with the oil, oil recovery would be dominated by cocur-
rent imbibition. For such a matrix, it is easy to envision that the
oil displaced by water adjacent to the FWL will be produced
above the FWL into the oil zone, not below.14 The results of this
study show that capillary imbibition leads to the production of oil,
predominantly from the rock surface in contact with the oil,
should such an open surface exist. For gravity-segregated water-
drive, such open surfaces may exist for a significant recovery
period. For the zero-capillary pressure inlet-boundary condition,
the percentage of the backflow recovery, i.e, the countercurrent
component, was shown to be small and independent of length.
共For the no-oil flow boundary condition at the inlet, backflow
recovery would be zero.兲 It was also shown that cocurrent imbi-
bition leads to faster oil recovery.
Simple calculations show that for some of the North Sea reser-
voirs, which exhibit small block size and high imbibition capillary
pressure, a large portion of the oil is recovered from the matrix
before the block becomes fully surrounded by water. Under these
circumstances, the proper formulation of cocurrent imbibition
should be considered. The above findings have important impli-
cations for the experimental studies of water injection in fractured
reservoirs in that the scaling experiment of countercurrent imbibi-
tion, which is commonly used to evaluate water injection in frac-
tured reservoirs, may lead to very pessimistic results. In a recent
modeling study,29 two different time scales were needed to match
the experimental and fine-grid simulation results of oil recovery
from matrix blocks experiencing advancing FWL.
In fractured gas reservoirs it is possibly unimportant to distin-
guish between co- and countercurrent imbibition. Due to low gas
viscosity, the gas-phase pressure gradient would be small and Eq.
1 with the diffusion coefficient of Eq. 8 would describe both
cocurrent and countercurrent imbibition.
bition. Further studies are warranted for the study of cocurrent and
countercurrent imbibition in a multiblock stack and for field ap-
plications.
2. The scaling criterion of Rapoport28 is valid for both co- and
countercurrent imbibition. However, oil recovery calculations
based on scaling studies of countercurrent imbibition, when used
for a cocurrent process, lead to pessimistic recovery predictions.
3. The diffusion equation may be inappropriate for the descrip-
tion of oil recovery by cocurrent imbibition; the oil pressure gra-
dient must be included.
Nomenclature
Latin Letters
B ⫽ capillary pressure constant, psi 共kPa兲,
m/Lt2
D ⫽ diffusion coefficient, cm2/s (m2/s), L2/t
L ⫽ length, cm 共m兲, L
P c ⫽ capillary pressure, psi 共kPa兲, m/Lt2
S w ⫺S iw
S⫽ ⫽ normalized water saturation, dimensionless
1⫺S or ⫺S iw
S i ⫽ normalized initial water saturation, dimen-
sionless
S w ⫽ water saturation, dimensionless
S wi ⫽ initial water saturation, dimensionless
S iw ⫽ irreducible water saturation, dimensionless
f ⫽ fractional flow, dimensionless
k ⫽ permeability, md ( ␮ m2), L2
n ⫽ relative permeability exponent, dimension-
less
q ⫽ flow rate, cm3/s (m3/s), L3/t
t ⫽ time, hour, second, t

Greek Letters
␾ ⫽ porosity, dimensionless
Conclusions
␮ ⫽ viscosity, cp 共mPa•s兲, m/Lt
1. Modeling results presented in this paper reveal that when a
ⵜ ⫽ gradient operator
water-wet porous media is partially in contact with water, oil re-
“ ⫽ divergence operator
covery is dominated by cocurrent imbibition, not countercurrent.
Moreover, cocurrent imbibition can be much more efficient than
countercurrent imbibition; the time for a specific recovery by Subscripts
cocurrent imbibition is a fraction of that by countercurrent imbi- D ⫽ dimensionless

10 M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000
 o ⫽ oil
or ⫽ residual oil
r ⫽ relative
w ⫽ water
Superscripts
0 ⫽ end-point value
Acknowledgments
This research project was supported by U.S. DOE Grant No. DE-
FG22-96BC14850 and the members of the Research Consortium
on the Fractured/Layered Reservoirs of the Reservoir Engineering
Research Institute 共RERI兲. This support is gratefully appreciated.
References
1. Marle, C.M.: Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing
Company, Editions Technip, Paris 共1981兲.
2. McWhorter, D.B. and Sunada, K.D.: ‘‘Exact Integral Solution for
Two-Phase Flow,’’ Water Resour. Res. 共1990兲 26, 339.
3. Chen, Z.-X.: ‘‘Some Invariant Solutions of Two-Phase Fluid Dis-
placement Problems Including Capillary Effect,’’ SPERE 共May 1988兲
691.
4. Chen, Z.-X., Bodvarsson, G.S., and Whiterspoon, P.A.: ‘‘An Integral
Equation Formulation for Two-Phase Flow and Other Nonlinear Flow
Problems Through Porous Media,’’ paper SPE 20517 presented at the
1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, 23–26 September.
5. Mattax, C.C. and Kyte, J.R.: ‘‘Imbibition Oil Recovery From Frac-
tured, Water-Drive Reservoir,’’ SPEJ 共June 1962兲 177; Trans.,
AIME, 225.
6. Iffly, R., Rousselet, D.C., and Vermeulen, J.L.: ‘‘Fundamental Study
of Imbibition in Fissured Oil Fields,’’ paper SPE 4102 presented at
the 1972 Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, 6–9 October.
7. Du Prey, E.L.: ‘‘Gravity and Capillary Effects on Imbibition in Po-
rous Media,’’ SPEJ 共June 1978兲 195.
8. Hamon, G. and Vidal, J.: ‘‘Scaling-Up the Capillary Imbibition Pro-
cess From Laboratory Experiments on Homogeneous Samples,’’ pa-
per SPE 15852 presented at the 1986 SPE European Petroleum Con-
ference, London, 22–25 October.
9. Cuiec, L.E., Bourbiaux, B.J., and Kalaydjian, F.J.: ‘‘Oil Recovery by
Imbibition in Low-Permeability Chalk,’’ SPEFE 共September 1994兲
200.
10. Zhang, X., Morrow, N.R., and Ma, S.: ‘‘Experimental Verification of
Modified Scaling Group for Spontaneous Imbibition,’’ SPERE 共No-
vember 1996兲 280.
11. Parsons, R.W. and Chaney, R.R.: ‘‘Imbibition Model Studies on
Water-Wet Carbonate Rocks,’’ SPEJ 共March 1966兲 26; Trans.,
AIME, 237.
12. Kleppe, J. and Morse, R.A.: ‘‘Oil Production From Fractured Reser-
voirs by Water Displacement,’’ paper SPE 5084 presented at the 1974
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 6–9 Oc-
tober.
13. Bourbiaux, B. and Kalaydjian, F.: ‘‘Experimental Study of Cocurrent
and Countercurrent Flow in Natural Porous Media,’’ SPERE 共August
1990兲 361; Trans., AIME, 289.
14. Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Firoozabadi, A.: ‘‘Experiments and Model-
ing of Water Injection in Water-Wet Fractured Media,’’ paper CIM
98-55 presented at the 1998 CIM Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary,
8–10 June.
15. Beckner, B.L. et al.: ‘‘Imbibition-Dominated Matrix Fracture Trans-
fer in Dual Porosity Simulators,’’ paper SPE 16981 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
27–30 September.
16. Dutra, T.V. and Aziz, K.: ‘‘A New Double-Porosity Reservoir Model
for Oil/Water Flow Problems,’’ SPERE 共November 1992兲 419.
17. Bech, N., Jensen, O.K., and Birger, N.: ‘‘Modeling of Gravity-
Imbibition and Gravity-Drainage Processes: Analytical and Numeri-
cal Solutions,’’ SPERE 共February 1991兲 129.
M. Pooladi-Darvish and A. Firoozabadi: Imbibition in Water-Wet Matrix Blocks
18. Morel-Seytoux, H.J.: ‘‘Two-Phase Flow in Porous Media,’’ in Ad-
vances in Hydroscience, 9th ed. R.J.M. Dewiest 共ed.兲, Academic
Press, San Diego, California 共1973兲.
19. Handy, L.L.: ‘‘Determination of Effective Capillary Pressure for Po-
rous Media from Imbibition Data,’’ Trans., AIME 共1960兲 219, 75.
20. Douglas, J. Jr., Peaceman, D.W., and Rachford, H.H. Jr.: ‘‘A Method
for Calculating Multidimensional Immiscible Displacement,’’ Trans.,
AIME 共1959兲 216, 297.
21. Peaceman, D.W.: ‘‘Numerical Solution of the Nonlinear Equations
for Two-Phase Flow Through Porous Media,’’ in Nonlinear Partial
Differential Equations—Methods of Solutions, W.F. Ames 共ed.兲, Aca-
demic Press, New York City 共1967兲 71–91.
22. Peaceman, D.W.: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation,
Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam 共1977兲.
23. Patankar, S.V.: Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemi-
sphere, Washington, DC 共1980兲.
24. Zhu, X. et al.: ‘‘The Effect of Crude-Oil Aging Time and Tempera-
ture on Rate of Water-Imbibition and Long-Term Recovery by Imbi-
bition,’’ SPEFE 共December 1995兲 259.
25. Barenblatt, G.I., Entov, V.M., and Ryzhik, V.M.: Theory of Fluid
Flows Through Porous Media, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands 共1990兲 272–281.
26. Rakhimkulov, I.F. and Shvidler, M.I.: ‘‘Self-Similar Problem of Si-
multaneous Flow of Oil and Water,’’ Izv. Nauk USSR Mekh. Mash.
共1962兲 136 共in Russian兲.
27. Bentsen, R.G. and Manai, A.A.: ‘‘Measurement of Cocurrent and
Countercurrent Relative Permeability Curves Using the Steady-State
Method,’’ AOSTRA J. Res. 7 共1994兲 169, 181.
28. Rapoport, L.A.: ‘‘Scaling Laws for Use in Design and Operation of
Water/Oil Flow Models,’’ Trans., AIME 共1955兲 204, 143.
29. Terez, I.E. and Firoozabadi, A.: ‘‘Water Injection in Water-Wet Frac-
tured Porous Media: Experiments and a New Model Using Modified
Buckley–Leverett Theory,’’ SPEJ 共June 1999兲 134.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp ⫻ 1 * E⫺03 ⫽ Pa•s
darcy ⫻ 9.869 233 E⫺01 ⫽ ␮m2
psi ⫻ 6.894 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEJ
Mehran Pooladi-Darvish is an assistant professor of petroleum
engineering at the U. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. e-mail:
pooladi@ucalgary.ca. His current research interests include
experimental and modeling studies of cold production of
heavy oil, water imbibition and miscible displacement in natu-
rally fractured reservoirs, and gas production from hydrate res-
ervoirs. He previously did research at the Reservoir Engineering
Research Inst. in Palo Alto, California; was a consultant in Cal-
gary; and was a reservoir engineer in Ahwaz, Iran. Mehran
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering, an MS degree in
chemical and petroleum engineering, and a PhD degree
from the U. of Alberta in petroleum engineering. Abbas
Firoozabadi is a senior scientist and director at the Reservoir
Engineering Research Inst. in Palo Alto. e-mail: af@rerinst.org.
His current research interests include multiphase flow in frac-
tured and layered media, equilibrium and nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, and hydrocarbon-reservoir performance.
Firoozabadi holds a BS degree from Abadan Inst. of Technol-
ogy, Iran, and MS and PhD degrees from Illinois Inst. of Tech-
nology, all in gas engineering. He has served on the Editorial
Review Committee since 1986 and was a 1988-89 member
and 1992-93 chairman of the Forum Series in North America
Steering Committee, a 1991-92 member of the Western Re-
gional Meeting Program Committee, a 1987-89 member of
the Reservoir Simulation Symposium Program Committee, and
a 1992-96 Short Course Instructor.
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2000 11