Very nice paper. I have a few comments.

Abstract - State data location data will be archived

Line 39 Change "2018+ Homestake Mine underground tests at Saniford Facility in North Dakota," to "

2018+ EGS Collab Project underground tests at Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota,"

Line 73 Explain the 29 fracture stages. To me a fracture stage is a location, but there are apparently 6 locations.

Line 102 "long" should be quantified. These long boreholes are short to most people.

Section 2.3.1 State the intervals for these tests.

Line 169 Change "permeable" to "permeability".

Table 1. "M4" to "M10". Verify that these are described in the paper.

Line 202 The location or reference for the "data archive" needs to be stated.

Figure 6. Define the numbers above each trace.

Line 253 State the location of the metadata.

Very interesting paper, written in a clear language. In the framework of the renewable energy sources and induced seismicity, it is a work that addresses current issues by presenting interesting food for thought and a complete and useful data set.

Few observations:

• Line 59: change “Zang et al. (2017)” in “Zang et al (2017a)” as reported in the bibliography. As well as for the other 2017 Zang article: “Zang, Stephansson & Zimmermann (2017)” in “Zang et al (2017b)”
• Line 73: Could you better explain in what the 29 fracture stages consist of compared to the six hydraulic tests?
• Line 88: I suggest replacing "Geology" with "Geological methods" in line with the other sections (Borehole geophysical methods; Hydraulic methods)
• Line 102: Highlight the location of TASA and TAS02 tunnels in relation to TASN tunnel in figure 1 (if it is possible)
• Line 136: Add a reference to the technique used to estimate P and S velocity starting from the ultrasonic pulse transmission data
• Figure 2: “HF1” explain in the text what it refers to. I think it is referred to the six hydraulic tests but it is not explicitly explained; as well as for the following HF? and HF? Refrac codes.
• Figure 4: Speaking of "conventional fracturing procedure", why are you referring to figure 2a ? Is it not figure 3a?
• Lines 161-163: “The calculations (details in Zimmermann et al., 2019) are based on the slope of the declining pressure curves after shut-in and are performed for the last 100 seconds of each shut-in period for the conventional treatment with constant flow rates and for the last 40 seconds for the cyclic stages (Fig. 4)”. Does the figure refer only to the case of constant flow rates, right?
• Table 1: M4 e M10 - what are their locations with respect to the area and the injection borehole?
• Figure 6 : Is the number above each trace the scaling factor?
• Line 193: what do you mean by short boreholes? You only give the information about injection borehole length. What about the others(M1-M10)? I see that some of these informations are contained in metadata but you don’t explicitly mentioned that in the text.