You are on page 1of 18



Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oi & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

The PRESAL 36 JIP is a project for the development of a powerful Ocean Current Model of 1/36 of a degree resolution, nested in an existing Global Ocean global Model, Mercator PSY4 (1/12-a-degree resolution ), with tide corrections, improved bathymetry accuracy and high frequency atmospheric forcing (every 3 hours). The simulation outputs will be the 3 dimensional structure of the velocity fields (u,v,w) at 50 vertical levels over the water column, including geostrophic, Ekman and tidal currents, together with Temperature, Salinity and sea surface height at a sub-mesoscale spatial resolution. Simulations will run in hindcast, nowcast and forecast modes, with a temporal resolution of 3 hours . This Ocean current model will allow to perform detailed statistical studies on various areas using conditions analysed using hindcast mode, short term operational condition prediction for various surface and subsea operations using realtime and Forecast modes. The paper presents a publication of significant results of the project, in term of pre-sal zoomed model implementation, and high resolution model validation. It demonstrate the capability to properly describe ocean current phenomenon at beyond mesoscale frontier. This project demonstrate the feasibility of obtaining accurate information for engineering studies and operational conditions, based on a “zoom technique” starting from global ocean models.

The Objective : Provide to Oil &Gas Companies and Offshore Engineering & Installation Contractors a better knowledge of the oceanic and meteorological environment and its spatio-temporal variability over the mining domains in the Brazil pre-salt Santos basin area, (South-Western tropical Atlantic).


______________________________ Master of Sciences in Ocean Dynamics, Director - ADVANCED SUBSEA DO BRASIL LTDA

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 The Product: PRESAL36 A powerful Ocean Current Model of 1/36 of a degree resolution, nested in an existing Global Ocean global Model, Mercator PSY4, at a resolution of 1/12 degree, with high resolution atmospheric forcing (every 3 hours). The simulation outputs will be the 3 dimensional structure of the velocity fields (u,v,w) at 50 vertical levels over the water column, including geostrophic, Ekman and tidal currents, together with the sea surface height at a sub-mesoscale spatial resolution. Simulations will run in hindcast, nowcast and forecast modes, with a temporal resolution of 3 hours . The Approach: It is a dynamical approach where Navier-Stokes equations are fully resolved in a 3D physical model over the domain. Velocities (u,v,w) along with temperature and salinity are computed at each grid point over the whole water column, discretized in a given number of layers (50 layers). Spatial resolution of the grid will be at sub-meso-scale (1/36°deg). Temporal resolution will be 3 hours. 7-days forecasts will be provided The Validation of the Model : Once the high resolution model PRESAL36, nested in the MERCATOR PSY4 -1/12° deg model, is implemented, It will be run in hindcast mode (before running in real time and forecast mode), in order to validate the model outputs using available eclectic oceanographic data : *altimetry, *sea surface temperature from high resolution SST (GHRSST-PP GODAE High Resolution SST pilot Project or MODIS SST, 4km resolution, etc..), *temperature and salinity profiles from ARGO profilers cruising in the area available at CORIOLIS, *surface floats, any ADCP or LADCP, CTD and XBT data,.. * ATLAS buoys in PIRATA-SWE, located at 19°S 34°W and 14°S 32°W : daily transmission of temperature at 11 depths (1, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 180, 300 and 500 m) and salinity at 4 levels (1, 20, 40 and 120 m), * Global Sea Level Observing Systems (GLOSS) off Brazil : Hourly sea level data : Ilha Fiscal (Rio de Janeiro) 22°54’S : GLOSS Station 195 and Cananeia 25°01’S : GLOSS Station 194, * Oil & Gas Companies available data The validation strategy will be to collect all observations available in the area, over a year, from June 2009 until December 2010 which will be the selected simulation period for the hindcast. Quantitative diagnostics will be provided in order to assess the model performance over the simulation period. The Main Phase of the Project: Phase 1: - 3 months – hindcast mode (completed) Configuration of a PSY4 - 20x20deg area using boundary conditions of PSY4 global 1/12 deg Ocean Model. Introduction of refined tide, precise bathymetry, atmospheric forcing (3hours), called PRESAL12, Simulation & validation using July 2009 till year 2010 data. Phase 2: - 6 months – hindcast mode (completed) Configuration of PRESAL36, zoomed 10°x10° -1/36°deg, embedded model in the 20x20° area Introduction of refined tide, precise bathymetry, atmospheric forcing (3hours), Simulation & validation over a one and a half year period. Phase 3: - 4 months – hindcast mode (completed) Detailed validation using all available data (Bibliography, climatology, field data. Preparation of the real-time mode This is the subject of our paper Phase 4: - 5+2 months - Real Time mode (ongoing) Configuration of real-time mode for automatic run/ forecast mode using PRESAL36. Start of forecast delivery.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2. The PRESAL12 Numerical Model
The PreSal12 numerical model, based on the v2.3 NEMO/OPA9 Ocean General Circulation Model [Madec et al. 1998; Madec, 2008], is developed to make it suitable for shelf and coastal modelling. In order to properly simulate tidal waves without unrealistic damping, the default “filtered” free surface formulation is replaced by a time splitting. In addition the default linear free surface approximation has been relaxed. In practice the vertical coordinate is rescaled from the sea level height, becoming the so called “z*” coordinate as described by Adcroft and Campin [2004]. This also adds non linear feedbacks in the dynamical equations that greatly enhance the compound tidal waves and bottom stresses, thus improving the representation of tidal waves in coastal regions.

Fig a: Bathymetry used for PSY4V1R3 and PreSal12 configurations Although simple one equation turbulence models (such as the default “TKE” closure used in NEMO) have often been used with success on the shelf, two-equations models appear more adapted to a proper representation of vertical mixing and of generation process of river plumes. After an extensive testing, the turbulence closure retained is a k-ε version of the generic length scale (GLS) formulation [Umlauf and Burchard, 2003] with the Canuto A stability functions [Canuto et al., 2001]. Meteorological fields from the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) with a three hour and 0.25°x0.25° resolution are used to force the model. According to Bernie et al. [2005], this temporal resolution is enough to simulate diurnal variations of the Sea Surface Temperature. Wind stress and heat surface fluxes are computed from CORE bulk formulae [Large and Yeager, 2004] using a set of atmospheric variables that consists in air temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure and the wind components at 10 meters. Radiative heat fluxes, freshwater flux and atmospheric pressure are also used to force the momentum and scalar equations. As the PSY4V1R3 system does not include tidal forcing and atmospheric pressure forcing, these signals are added at the open boundaries. Tidal open boundary data for 11 constituents (M2, S2, K2, N2, K1, O1, P1, Q1, M4, Mf, Mm) are provided according to the protocol described by Chanut et al. [2008]. Elevations due to 3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 atmospheric pressure static effects, also known as inverse barometer effects [Wunsch and Stammer, 1997], are computed from the ECMWF pressure fields. The bathymetry used is the same as the one used in PSY4V1R3. Around 20°S, in the middle of the Brazil Pre-sal domain, the Vitoria-Trindade Ridge extends offshore until 32°W, rising up to 100m below sea level.

Domain NEMO code version Assimilation scheme version Resolution Time Step Vertical coordinate Free Surface Vertical Mixing Tracer horizontal advection Tides Short wave radiation penetration Atmospheric forcing Runoff Open boundaries Initial condition Bulk formulae Output frequency Global 1.09 SAM2V1 with IAU 1/12° 480s Z (50 levels) Explicit, filtered 1.5 TKE closure [Gaspar, 1990] TVD No 2 bands scheme. Constant water type I 6h ECMWF outputs Dai and Trenberth data No Levitus Climatology Clio daily

Campos Basin 2.3 no 1/12°-1/36° 450s Z* (50 levels) Split explicit k-ε [Umlauf and Burchard, 2003] Quickest [Leonard,1979] Yes (including potential) 2 bands scheme. Variable climatological PAR absorption depth 3h ECMWF outputs including atmospheric forcing pressure Dai and Trenberth data Daily from PSY4V1R3 Output from PS4V1R3 Core daily

Models PreSal12/36 are built using PSY4V1R3 to initialize temperature, salinity, surface elevation, zonal and meridional current components. Then the models PreSal12/36 run on their own, only using open boundaries conditions created from PSY4V1R3.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Fig b : Schematic representation of PreSal12 initialisation from PSY4V1R3

Fig c : Schematic representation of PreSal12/36 open boundaries conditions created from PSY4V1R3

3. Validation of PRESAL36
When we look at the PreSal36 results. We recall here that PreSal36 uses the same physics than PSY4 and PRESAL12. Indeed, except the resolution of the grid, the only difference between these simulations is the bathymetry. Figure shows the difference of bathymetries used in PreSal12 and PreSal36. We can point out the huge difference in these bathymetries in the south east of the domain, where the seamounts are smoothed in PreSal12 as compared to PreSal36 bathymetry. If we look at the shelf break, we can note that the shelf is more eastward in PreSal12, except in front of Cape Frio (23°S). At this place the shelf break is clearly closer to the coast in PreSal36, and isobaths of 1000m depth of both bathymetries are shifted from ~0.2°.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 1 : Difference of bathymetries used in PreSal12 and PreSal36. Isobaths of PreSal36 are black lines, while those of PreSal12 are red lines.

3.1 Eddy kinetic Energy The EKE derived from PreSal36 simulations is higher than the one derived from AVISO over the entire domain and particularly off Cape Frio (22°S, maximum ~3600 cm2s-2). However, the EKE pattern seems similar to the one derived from the AVISO products (Figure 1), with a gap near 23°S, and an energetic pool between 25°S and 26°S along the shelf break. Furthermore, as compared with the EKE levels derived from PRESAL12 model outputs, one can note the reduced values of EKE along the shelf, between 22° and 28°S (~640 cm2s-2), in much better agreement with EKE values derived from the AVISO product (~592 cm2s-2).

Figure 1 : 2010 annual mean Eddy Kinetic Energy (cm²s ) from PreSal36 simulation, and AVISO product.




Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 3.2 Thermal Structure As previously, we compare daily SST field derived from PreSal36 with the OSTIA SST field (Figure 2) for two periods, one in September (austral winter), and the other one in March (austral summer). First we notice that the main features described by the OSTIA product are well mimicked by PreSal36. Furthermore we can point out the strengthening of the colder waters around Cape Frio, in summer as in winter, as compared to PreSal12 and to PSY4V1R3. Although the size of PreSal36 area does not really allow us to conclude about the structure of the South Atlantic Warm Pool, PreSal36 results seem to agree with the seasonal motion of the SAWP. Finally we notice that, as for PSY4V1R3 and PreSal12, the model is able to simulate mesoscale dynamical features, such as frontal structures, meanders, eddies and filaments. As previously, we built a Taylor diagram comparing daily SST from models and OSTIA product (see Figure 3). Here again models present very good correlation (~0.9) with data. We can notice that PreSal36 is better than PreSal12, and close to PSY4V1R3.

Figure 2 : OSTIA (upper) and PreSal36 derived (lower) SST for March 15th 2010 (left), and September 15th 2010 (right).


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 3 : Taylor diagram of PreSal36, PreSal12 and PSY4V1R3 compared to OSTIA SST, over the year 2010.

Unfortunately, there is no more PIRATA-SWE buoy in the PreSal36 domain, so we can not check model outputs with these observations. Finally we compare model monthly mean outputs with CARS climatology, over PreSal36 area for the year 2010, from surface to 25m depth. Results for PreSal36 and PreSal12 are quite similar, with a high correlation with climatological data (~0.9) for temperature and salinity. PSY4V1R3 exhibits a slightly worst correlation (~0.85) with climatology than both PreSal models.

Figure 4 : Taylor diagram of monthly mean temperature and salinity of PreSal36, PreSal12 and PSY4V1R3 compared to CARS climatology, over the year 2010.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 3.3 Water Masses As we can see in Figure 5, the water masses characteristics of PreSal36 are conserved from PreSal12 and before from PSY4V1R3.

Figure 5 : θ-S diagram showing the changing characteristics of water masses inside PreSal36 area. In red profile for each PreSal36 grid point, in black Levitus mean profile over the PreSal36 area

3.4 Mean circulation The horizontal annual mean currents derived from the PreSal36 model are shown on Figure 6 at the same four depths than previously presented for PSY4V1R3 and PreSal12. Calado et al. (Calado, et al., 2008) proposed a schematic of coastal oceanic circulation features off southeast Brazil (Calado, et al., 2008) which agree with the South Atlantic mean circulation described by Stramma and England (Stramma, et al., 1999) In this schematic we can see a southward current along the shelf break of the Brazilian South Bight, as in the first level of PreSal36 mean circulation (Figure 6a-b). At depth around 1200m, Calado et al. (Calado, et al., 2008) describe a northward flow of the Antarctic Intermediate Water. The mean flow of PreSal36 model at this level is northward too (not shown), however the AAIW flow is stronger around 760m (Figure 6c) in PreSal36. Finally at the deepest level the mean flow goes southward (Figure 6d). So the PreSal36 mean circulation reproduces quite well the circulation described by Calado et al. (Calado, et al., 2008) and so by Stramma and England (Stramma, et al., 1999).

Figure 6 : Horizontal ocean currents simulated by PreSal36 near the surface (a), around 185 m (b), around 760m (c) and around 1940m (d).


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Now we focus on the main differences between PreSal12 and PreSal36, we first notice than the Brazilian current in PreSal36 splits in two branches. The first one which flows along the shelf break at 1000m depth is weaker than the BC in PreSal12. However the second one, which flows southward along the 2000m isobath, is stronger than in PreSal12 (Figure 7a). This second branch of the BC in PreSal36 seems to feed and strengthen an eddy (26°S 42°W) from surface to 760m depth (Figure 7 a-b-c). Finally in the Deep water layer, the NADW seems to flow more easterly and it is somehow stronger in PreSal36 than in PreSa12. As previously, we compare models results with LEGOS surface currents over the PreSal36 area (see Figure 8). Again, as expected the correlation between PSY4V1R3 and LEGOS surface currents is reasonable (0.5-0.6), while PreSal12 and PreSal36 present similar results (0.3-0.4).

Figure 7 : Difference of mean horizontal ocean currents simulated by PreSal12 and PreSal36 near the surface (a), around 185 m (b), around 760m (c) and around 1940m (d).


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 8 : Taylor diagram of PreSal36, PreSal12 and PSY4V1R3 compared to LEGOS surface currents, Over the year 2010.

3.5 Buoy trajectory analysis Now we focus on the ability of the models to describe accurately currents in space and time. To this aim, we use data from drifters drogued at 15m depth. Figure 9 shows the trajectories of all drifters used for this study. From July 1st 2009 to December 31th 2010, we use 61 buoys. For each one we get information about the position every 6 hours.

Figure 9 : Trajectories of drifters around PreSal area from July 1st 2009 to December 31th 2010

To compare buoy trajectories with model outputs, we first filter inertial frequencies, from the buoy time series. Then we compute buoy velocity at time t from the positions at t-6h and t+6h. We collocate the buoy position on the model grid, and interpolate the model current at this point. Note that model outputs are daily means. So even if the model was able to mimick exactly the real world, we cannot reproduce the buoy velocity each 6 hours.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 10 : Scatter plots of drifter velocity components (zonal left, meridional right) versus model current, from July 1st 2009 to December 31th 2010, over PreSal36 area

Figure 10 show scatter plots of drifter velocity components versus model current, respectively over PreSal12 and

PreSal36 domains. Then we can observe that the correlation is better on meridional currents than on zonal currents for all simulations, and that the correlation increases in the PreSal36 domain. This is due to the major influence of the southward Brazilian Current on this area.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Now we look at differences between buoy velocity and model currents in direction, module, and for zonal and meridional components. 15 and Figure 12 show histograms of these differences for all simulations over the PreSal12 and PreSal36 domains. We can see that all simulations have difficulties to reproduce the direction of buoys. Although the modules of current are more accurately computed by models, there are still large discrepancies (~40cm/s) between model and buoy which seem to amplify on the PreSal36 domain.

Figure 11 : Differences between drifter velocity and PSY4V1R3 currents for module, direction, zonal and meridional current, over PreSal36 domain.

Figure 12 : Differences between drifter velocity and PreSal36 currents for module, direction, zonal and meridional current, over PreSal36 domain.

Finally we used the Ariane software to compute trajectories simulated by models. We launched 600 particles every three day in a circular area of 600m diameter around the buoy position and followed them for three days. Then we computed the mean trajectory of these 600 simulated virtual particles. Some examples are shown in Figure 13, where we see in black the trajectories of some buoys, and in color the simulated trajectories obtained with Ariane, during the first 72 hours, using PSY4V1R3 (red), PRESAL12 (green) and PRESAL36 (blue). Figure 13a shows a buoy driven by the Brazilian Current along the shelf break. The models led trajectory seems to agree with the buoy direction and velocity, particularly PSY4V1R3. PRESAL36 has more difficulties to keep the direction right. Figure 13b shows a buoy caught by an eddy. None of the models can reproduce this buoy direction. However simulated particles velocities seem close with those of the buoy. Figure 13c shows a trajectory with eddy and meanders. As previously, the models led trajectory cannot reproduce the eddy trajectory. We see that PSY4V1R3 and PRESAL12 simulated particles turn earlier than the buoy. After this first bend the PSY4V1R3 trajectory seems to relatively agree with the buoy motion, while the trajectories with PRESAL12 and PRESAL36, go slower first and finally go in the opposite direction than the buoy. Finally Figure 13d shows a buoy moving from the East to the shelf, and then going back. In this case PRESAL36 reproduces quite well the buoy motion in a first stage, and then near the 2000m isobath, simulated particles change direction. On the contrary, PSY4V1R3 simulated particles trajectories don not follow the buoy trajectory in the first days but reproduce very well the bend of the buoy trajectory and the westward flow. Then they miss to describe properly the buoy trajectory above the seamounts, probably due to the smoothed bathymetry over the area in PSY4V1R3.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 13 : Buoy trajectories (black), and Ariane trajectories simulated with models output (colored).

To get some global statistics on the ability to reproduce buoy trajectory by the models, we computed currents and direction (from the launch position to position at time t), both for buoys and Ariane trajectories. Figure 14 to Figure show differences between these directions and currents. Results are quite similar with those obtained previously with drifters. We see that models have difficulties to simulate properly direction of the buoys, particularly PRESAL12 and PRESAL36 (see Figure 15 and Figure ). As we mentioned above, this may be due to the spatio-temporal shift of some eddies, which made the buoys and the simulated particles go in opposite directions.

Figure 14 : Differences between trajectories simulated by Ariane with PSY4V1R3 output and buoy trajectories, in direction (left) and module of current (right).


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 15 : Differences between trajectories simulated by Ariane with PRESAL12 output and buoy trajectories, in direction (left) and module of current

Figure 21 : Differences between trajectories simulated by Ariane with PRESAL36 outputs and buoy trajectories, in direction (left) and module of current (right).

Furthermore we computed the mean distance between the buoy and the simulated trajectories (see Table 1). We see that PSY4V1R3 trajectories stay closer to the buoys than the two other models, which agrees with a better simulated direction (Figure 14). PSY4V1R3 5.083 9.842 19.229 35.272 PRESAL12 5.810 11.341 22.160 37.743 PRESAL36 6.249 12.402 24.280 41.837

Distance after 6 hours Distance after 12 hours Distance after 24 hours Distance after 48 hours

Table 1 : Mean distance (km) between buoys and simulated trajectories obtained with Ariane

Dispersion after 6 hours Dispersion after 12 hours Dispersion after 24 hours Dispersion after 48 hours

PSY4V1R3 634.196 666.209 765.669 972.926

PRESAL12 640.990 674.350 745.558 814.998

PRESAL36 636.393 670.934 762.057 963.473

Table 2 : Mean dispersion (m) of simulated trajectories obtained with Ariane


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

4. Conclusion
We used the Siren software together with the PSY4V1R3 system to build the PreSal12 and PreSal36 configurations over an extended area around the Santos-Campos Basin, the so-called Pre-Sal area in the South Western Tropical Atlantic Ocean. The objective is to quantitatively assess the performance of these models. We first examined the quality of the numerical outputs of the PSY4V1R3 simulation over the year 2010. The derived Eddy Kinetic Energy presents reasonable spatial patterns over the entire region, with high values along the shelf edge and moderately high values in the South West Atlantic. Despite this general consistency, values produced by the PSY4V1R3 simulation seem overestimated as compared with EKE values derived from satellite observations. Daily modeled SST compare relatively well with satellite SST observations and the oscillation of the South Atlantic Warm Pool (SAWP hereafter) between winter and summer is nicely mimicked. As the PSY4V1R3 model was run in assimilation mode, temperature and salinity derived from PSY4V1R3 naturally compare well with assimilated observations. We show that the assimilation procedure is crucially required to correct the model discrepancies in temperature and salinity in the upper layers. Modelled water masses in the Pre-Sal area are quite well reproduced when compared with those present in the South West Atlantic. The mean circulation patterns agree with the South Atlantic mean circulation as described by Stramma and England (Stramma & England, 1999), both horizontally and vertically. Secondly, we focused on the PreSal12 simulation results. The PreSal12 mean circulation is not altered by the nesting procedure which considers the PSY4V1R3 conditions at the open boundaries. The circulation remains consistent with the main circulation schemes described by Stramma and England. Furthermore the PreSal12 circulation seems to have improved as some recirculation loops appeared in the Santos Basin and south of the Vitoria Ridge. We then look at the evaluation of the performance of the PreSal36 simulation. The spatial features of the derived Eddy Kinetic Energy are quite similar to those of PSY4V1R4 or PreSal12. The EKE values are higher than those obtained from satellite product overall the domain. However EKE values are higher than others models off Cape Frio and close to the PSY4V1R3 EKE values along the shelf break in Santos Basin. Unfortunately there is no PIRATA-SWE buoy over the domain to compare to PreSal36 simulation. However we observed that the SAWP oscillation is still present and well reproduced by the surface temperature of the model. Moreover, the daily spatial pattern and values of the modeled SST are quite similar to satellite observations. The mean circulation over the PreSal36 domain cannot be compared to the South Atlantic mean circulation described by Stramma and England (Stramma & England, 1999). However, Calado et al. (Calado, Gangopadhyayc, & da Silveira, 2008) have proposed a schematic circulation focused on the southeastern Brazil area, which agrees with the PreSal36 mean circulation. Furthermore, the mesoscale activity seems enhanced with an increased number of eddies (cyclonic and anticyclonic) and a stronger meandering of the southward flowing Brazil current. Afterwards we compared these models with drifting buoys data, although we knew the frequency of drifter buoy data acquisition is higher than the frequency of the velocity model outputs. As expected we see that both models experience difficulty to reproduce buoy velocities, particularly the direction of the velocity vector. This is a very stringent test for a numerical model but of key importance for truly operational purposes. Finally, we have shown some examples of interesting ocean variability described by the PreSal simulations, as eddies formation, reverse of current, or shelf break upwelling. So far we have built two “tools” models PreSal12 and PreSal36, which reproduce very well temperature and salinity. In surface as in the deep ocean, both configurations produce similar results as compared to satellite observations and climatology. Our tool models, as PSY4V1R3, reproduce well water masses distribution over the Pre-Sal area. Their mean circulation agrees with the one described in the literature. Furthermore the EKE patterns agree with satellite observations, although EKE values are higher than values derived from satellite observations in all models. However when we check the ability of models to describe accurately currents in space and time, using buoy data and current fields derived from satellite, we observe than PSY4V1R3 provides better results than our models, and that PreSal12 is better than PreSal36. These tests seem to give a key role to the assimilation process. In order to confirm that, it was interesting to build PreSal36bis directly in PSY4V1R3 to remain closer to the solution with data assimilation. The results show that PreSal36bis seem slightly better or equivalent to PreSal36, to reproduce the real world in the PreSal area.

5. Acknowledgements
Partners of this JIP are MERCATOR OCEAN (France) for Expertise in Numerical Models (PSY4), tools (Siren) and LEGOS Laboratory (France) for Presal12/ Presal36 implementation and validation expertise. 16

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

6. Bibliography
Calado,  L.,  Gangopadhyayc,  A.,  &  da  Silveira,  I.  (2008).  Feature-­‐oriented  regional  modeling  and   simulations  (FORMS)  for  the  western  South  Atlantic:  Southeastern  Brazil  region.  Ocean  Modelling  ,   Volume  25,  Issues  1-­‐2,  Pages  48-­‐64.   Stramma,  L.,  &  England,  M.  (1999).  On  the  water  masses  and  mean  circulation  of  the  South  Atlantic   Ocean.  J.  Geophys.  Res.,  104(C9)  ,  pp.  20,863–  20,883.   Hulburt,  H.,  Brassington,  G.,  Drillet,  Y.,  Kamachi,  M.,  Benkiran,  M.,  Bourdalle-­‐Badie,  R.,  et  al.  (2009).   High  resolution  global  and  basin-­‐scale  ocean  analyses  and  forecasts,  special  issue  on  the  revolution  of   global  ocean  forecasting-­‐GODAE  :  10  years  of  achievement.  Oceanography,  Vol  22  .   Madec,  G.,  Delecluse,  P.,  Imbard,  M.,  &  Levy,  C.  (1998).  OPA8.1  Ocean  general  circulation  model  reference   manual.  Institut  Pierre-­Simon  Laplace,  20,  p.91.     Madec,  G.,  &  Imbard,  M.  (1996).  A  global  ocean  mesh  to  overcome  the  North  Pole  singularity.  Clim.   Dyn.,  12  ,  pp.  381-­‐388.   Barnier,  B.,  &  al,  &.  (2006).  Impact  of  partial  steps  and  momemtum  advection  schemes  in  a  global   ocean  circulation  model  at  eddy  permitting  resolution.  Ocean  Dynamics,  DOI:  10.1007/s10236-­006-­ 0082-­1  .   Bourdalle-­‐Badie,  R.,  &  Treguier,  A.-­‐M.  (2006).  A  climatology  of  runoff  for  the  global  ocean-­ice  model   ORCA025,  Mercator  Ocean.     Boyer,  T.,  Levitus,  S.,  Garcia,  H.,  Locarnini,  R.  A.,  Stephens,  C.,  &  Antonov,  J.  (2005).  Objective  analyses  of   annual,  seasonal,  and  monthly  temperature  and  salinity  for  the  World  Ocean  on  a  0.25°  grid.   International  Journal  of  Climatology,  25  ,  pp.  931–945.   Madec,  G.  (2008).  Nemo  Ocean  General  Circulation  Model  Reference  Manuel.  Internal  Report.   LODYC/IPSL,  Paris.     Levier,  B.,  Tréguier,  A.-­‐M.,  Madec,  G.,  &  Garnier,  V.  (2007).  Free  surface  and  variable  volume  in  the   NEMO  code.  MERSEA  IP  report  WP09-­CNRS-­STR03-­1A,  47pp  .   Shchepetkin,  A.,  &  McWilliams,  J.  (2005).  The  regional  oceanic  modeling  system  (ROMS):  a  split-­‐ explicit,  free-­‐surface,  topography  following-­‐coordinate  oceanic  model.  Ocean  Modelling,  Volume  9,  Issue   4  ,  pp.  347-­‐404.   Adcroft,  A.,  &  Campin,  J.  (2004).  Rescaled  height  coordinates  for  accurate  representation  of  free-­‐ surface  flows  in  ocean  circulation  models.  Ocean  Modelling,  Vol  7,  Issues  3-­4  ,  pp.  269-­‐284.   Umlauf,  L.,  &  Burchard,  H.  (2003).  A  generic  length-­‐scale  equation  for  geophysical  turbulence  models.   Journal  of  Marine  Research,  Volume  61,  Number  2  ,  pp.  235-­‐265(31).   Canuto,  V.,  Howard,  A.,  Cheng,  Y.,  &  Dubovikov,  M.  (2001).  Ocean  Turbulence.  Part  I:  One-­‐Point  Closure   Model—Momentum  and  Heat  Vertical  Diffusivities.  Journal  of  Physical  Oceanography  31:6  ,  pp.  1413-­‐ 1426.  

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Wunsch,  C.,  &  Stammer,  D.  (1997).  Atmospheric  loading  and  the  oceanic  “inverse  barometer”  effect.   Reviews  of  Geophysics,  35(1)  ,  pp.  79-­‐107.   Silva,  M.,  Araujo,  M.,  Servain,  J.,  Penven,  P.,  &  Lentini,  C.  (2009).  High-­‐resolution  regional  ocean   dynamics  simulation  in  the  southwestern  tropical  Atlantic.  Ocean  Modelling,  Vol  30  .   Cailleau,  S.,  Chanut,  J.,  Levier,  B.,  Maraldi,  C.,  &  Reffray,  G.  (2010,  October).  The  new  regional  generation   of  Mercator  Ocean  system  in  the  Iberian  Biscay  Irish  (IBI)  area.  Mercator  Ocean  Quaterly  Newsletter,   No  39  .   Chanut,  J.,  &  al,  e.  (2008).  Towards  North  East  Atlanic  Regional  modelling  at  1/12°  and  1/36°  at   Mercator  Ocean.  Quarterly  Newsletter  Mercator  Ocean,  vol  30  ,  pp.  4-­‐12.   Schmid,  C.,  Schäfer,  H.,  Podesta,  G.,  &  Zenk,  W.  (1995).  The  Vitoria  Eddy  and  its  relation  to  the  Brazil   Current.  J.  Phys.  Oceanogr.,  25  ,  pp.  2532–  2546.   Lorenzzetti,  J.,  Kampel,  M.,  Bentz,  C.,  &  Torres,  J.  A.  (2006).  A  meso-­scale  brazil  current  frontal  eddy:   observation  by  asar,  radarsat-­1  complemented  with  visible  and  infrared  sensors,  in  situ  data,  and   numerical  modelling.  Proceedings  of  SEASAR.     Reid,  J.  (1989).  On  the  total  geostrophic  circulation  of  the  South  Atlantic  Ocean:  Flow  patterns,  tracers   and  transports.  rog.  Oceanogr.,  20  ,  pp.  149-­‐244.   Boebel,  O.,  Schmid,  C.,  &  Zenk,  W.  (1997).  Flow  and  recirculation  of  Antarctic  Intermediate  Water   across  the  Rio  Grande  Rise.  J.  Geophys.  Res.,  102  ,  pp.  20,967-­‐20,986.   Lindquist,  K.  G.,  Engle,  K.,  Stahlke,  D.,  &  Price,  E.  (2004).  Global  Topography  and  Bathymetry  Grid   Improves  Research  Efforts.  Eos  Trans.  AGU,  (pp.  85(19),  186).   Sudre,  J.,  &  Morrow,  R.  (2008).  Global  surface  currents  :  a  high-­‐resolution  product  for  investigating   ocean  dynamics.  Ocean  Dynamics  ,  58:101:118.   Campos,  E.,  Velhote,  D.,  &  da  Silveira,  I.  (2000).  Shelf  breal  upwelling  driven  by  Brazil  Current  cyclonic   meanders.  Geophysical  Research  Letters  ,  Vol  27,  No  6,  Pages  751-­‐754.   Maraldi,  C.,  Levier,  B.,  Ayoub,  N.,  Chanut,  J.  D.,  Drevillon,  M.,  Garcia,  M.,  et  al.  (in  preparation).  Nemo  on   the  shelf  :  assessment  of  the  Iberian  Biscay  Irish  configuration.   Pascual,  A.,  Faugere,  Y.,  Larnicol,  G.,  &  Le  Traon,  P.  (2006).  Improved  description  of  the  ocean   mesoscale  variability  by  combining  four  satellite  altimeters.  Geophysical  Research  Letters  ,  Vol.  33  ,  N.  2   ,  P.  NIL_13-­‐NIL_16  (0094-­‐8276).   Tranchant,  B.,  Testut,  C.,  Renault,  L.,  Ferry,  N.,  Birol,  F.,  &  Brasseur,  P.  (2008).  Expected  impact  of  the   future  SMOS  and  Aquarius  Ocean  surface  salinity  missions  in  the  Mercator  Ocean  operational  systems  :   New  perspectives  to  monitor  ocean  circulation.  1476-­‐1487.   Sotillo,  M.,  Jordi,  A.,  Ferre,  M.,  Conde,  J.,  &  Trintore,  J.  A.-­‐F.  (2007).  The  ESEOO  Regional  Ocean   Forcasting  System.  International  Offshore  and  Polar  Engineering  Conference,  Vol  1  -­  4,  1716  -­  1722.