deletions | additions       diff --git a/chapter_Context_section_Introduction_Matched__.tex b/chapter_Context_section_Introduction_Matched__.tex  index 17aacda..0441810 100644  --- a/chapter_Context_section_Introduction_Matched__.tex  +++ b/chapter_Context_section_Introduction_Matched__.tex 
...
The presence, importance and cause of induced seismicity at geothermal power generation sites has been recognized for decades \cite{Ward_1972} \cite{Allis_1982}. Commonly, temperature and pressure change within a reservoir as a result of fluid injection is the culprit, although seismicity has also been attributed to reservoir volume changes and changes in fluid chemistry \cite{Allis_1982} \cite{Sherburn_2015}. Most of this seismicity is of magnitude < 3.0, termed microseismicity, and presents limited hazard to local population and infrastructure, although the degree to which humans are affected varies considerably from location to location. Regardless of risk, microseismicity can provide very useful information about the movement of fluid and pressure within the reservoir, and therefore has important implications for geothermal resource management.  Microseismicity at geothermal areas can be highly repetitive in both its triggering process and its spatial extent. It is therefore suited to detection via matched filtering, which is recognized to be one of the best ways to identify near-repeating signals in continuous data \cite{Gibbons_2006}. It is also suited to earthquake detection in noisy geothermal power generation areas because it relies on signal cross-correlation as opposed to relative amplitudes to search for events \cite{Shelly_2007}. We investigate the performance of matched filtering on a nearly year-long dataset for Ngatamariki and Rotokawa geothermal fields on the north island of New Zealand, focusing on amplifying the number of detections triggered using standard methods and assessing what any additional detections might contribute to our knowledge of the processes at play within the reservoirs. \section{Objectives}  \begin{itemize}  \item Objective 1: Perform matched filter earthquake detection on the full 2012-2015 Mighty River Power seismic dataset  \begin{itemize}  \item Compare rates of matched filter detection with MRP power plant operations, especially injection  \item Locate and double-difference relocate detected events  \item Characterize location and extent of microseismicity in the context of well locations and rates of injection with time  \end{itemize}  \item Objective 2: Determine source parameters, including magnitude and focal mechanisms, of matched filter detections  \begin{itemize}  \item Relate source parameters to reservoir processes (i.e. increased pressure, thermal contraction, subsidence)  \end{itemize}  \item Objective 3: Perform subspace earthquake detection on the full 2012-2015 Mighty River Power seismic dataset  \begin{itemize}  \item Compare subspace detection results with results of matched filter detection and assess the performance of both  \end{itemize}  \end{itemize}