1-514: The manuscript discusses the impact of reservoir filling on induced seismicity and concludes, that the undrained response of the subsurface rather than pore pressure diffusion is triggering mechanism. Field, lab and modelling techniques are used to reach this conclusion. Recommendations on how to prevent future induced earthquakes through reservoir impoundment strategies are given. 

The scientific significance of the manuscript is high with the topic remaining urgent and unresolved. The presentation quality is superb as the manuscript is very well structured and filled with visually pleasing and comprehensible figures. The use of the English language is impeccable throughout most parts; however, two sections fall below standard and need thorough revision. The list of references also needs revision as consistency is lacking. The scientific quality is high as well. Abundant and relevant references are included, established methods are applied, results are discussed and put into context, and recommendations for reservoir management strategies are given.

Please mind these detailed comments for minor revision:

13: At what frequency? It sounds like it is always the case.

18: Great!

21: Delete comma

22: Numbers until twelve in letters?

23: Wording too complicated. Maybe "above the bottom threshold".

29: Traditionally I expect all effective stresses to decrease when pore pressure increases. Please make difference clearer in this sentence.

50: Great introduction

52: I'm confused by the variation in abbreviations: Mw, ~M and M. All the same?

59: Great

65: Thanks for the examples

68: What is the aim of the manuscript? It reads as if it was the forecasting of RTS hazard by interaction and analysis of drained and undrained responses.

77: Great reading flow

85: Great position of this paragraph

93: that = it

92: that = the

96: I really like the traditional structure of the manuscript

106: Language issues? Word order?

104: Reference?

105: ..sedimentation processes of passive margins associated with the deposition.. Language issues? Stands out against all other sentences.

108: Blue colour doesn't match well in image/legend

108: What indicates the line at the top left?

114: Number = word?

124: Maybe word it more carefully? "This leads us to investigate a causative relationship/ hypothesis"

132: Space in reference missing

147: Is this also true for the depth of the event (3.88km)? Maybe add information on faulting regime data source and depth.

155: Why is this differently spelled? km vs. -km. It occurs several times throughout the manuscript.

182: Maybe stay in present tense here, like everywhere else.

188: Delete second "an"

220: ..in these samples. I find this btw already an interesting result!

233: Maybe elaborate a little on the similarity of the rocks to make this argument more convincing for the reader.

276: I don't associate highly metamorphosed rock with good porosity. It reads as if the authors do. Maybe contrast better: "despite high porosity, the rock has low permeability. Therefore, …"

278: I like the idea with the integrated outcrop picture. However, I don't find the figure intuitive to an amateur reader: Is this is a side view or a top view? What does the irregular trapezium indicate? Are the angles of the sides relevant? What do the yellow circles indicate? Where do the arrows point? Where does the crystalline rock start? Why is the figure in this irregular box? 

290: What is the problem? Please specify.

289: "Potential reservoir site". Make it more obviously a recommendation and summary.

289 cont.: These are conclusions and recommendations rather than discussion. Move to correct section please.

296: In the Irapé case the dam is already built and poro-perm measurements have been taken. Please make the distinction clearer between the existing project and potential future projects.

299-309: PARAGRAPH IS POORLY WRITTEN, PLEASE REWRITE . Vocabulary is insufficient and words seem to be missing. While the rest of the manuscript is carefully and beautifully composed, this paragraph seems to lack structure, aim and, frankly, language skills.

299: Is being employed or should be employed? Above, conditional tense is used, here not. Please adjust.

302: "effort have begun"? Maybe: Efforts have been made regarding... "infrastructure harm"? Maybe: damages… "loss and damages" of what?

300-302: Please rewrite. TLP does not initiate light and is not an approach or point. Maybe: According to the TLP green light permits operations without restriction, yellow light demands mitigation measures and red light appeals for regulatory intervention.

304: ensure??

305: can be revolved around??

307: promising what?

311: The figure is insufficiently included and introduced in the paragraph.

313-318: The description is great.

335: Manipulation of reservoir loading refers to the impoundment. Mind that the study also suggests mitigation and management strategies for risk of RTS (289-323) which is not mentioned here. Add?

359-513: LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCONSISTENT AND CONTAINS ERRORS, PLEASE REWRITE. - points missing - spaces missing - pages differently abbreviated - DOIs differently inserted - links inconsistently used - some spelling errors

Thank you for your efforts and good luck!

The article presents an analytical assessment of the undrained response impact on the state of stress change during reservoir impoundment and associated reservoir triggered seismicity. Authors present laboratory measured permeability and porosity to support the assumption of undrained response. The assessment is based on assumption of oedometer conditions and using analytical expression based on poroelastic relationships. However, a significant deficiency is that Equation 1 has only relation between horizontal stress and pore pressure. Even if the pore pressure is not changing (drained condition) the horizontal stress would change due to the change of vertical stress. This effect is expected to be the same order of magnitude or stronger than the effect of pore pressure change and therefore cannot be neglected. It is recommended that the calculations have to be updated or it should be explicitly shown that the term can be neglected (more details are available in specific comments in the attached file.