The paper by Feng et al. discusses the seismic hazard related to fluid-injections in the Tangshan region, North China. The authors evaluate the fault-slip potential of regional faults as a response to fluid-injections in the Matouying enhanced geothermal field. They use the available focal mechanisms to perform stress tensor inversions and to define the ambient stress field, as combined with in-situ stress measurements from regional boreholes.  Then by using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, they perform a risk assessment for induced seismicity as a response to various injection scenarios in the Matouying EGS. Overall, the paper presents some interesting insights on the seismic hazard related to the development of EGS in North China, is well-written and should be considered for publication. There are a few points listed below, however, that require some further clarifications and possibly revisions.

1) The focal mechanisms dataset used for the inversion should be provided as a table in the supplementary material.

2) There are too many sections and figures in the manuscript. Some of the sections can be combined, as for instance sections 3, 5.1, 6.1 combined in a methodology section and sections 5, 6 and 7 in a broader results section. Some of the figures can be transferred to the supplementary material, or provided as insets in other figures (e.g., Fig.9 as inset of Fig.8).

3) In the local scale of Fig.13, the authors display several faults in the vicinity of the MTY EGS that are not displayed in the regional maps (e.g., Fig.11). Discuss the reason and perhaps provide local scale figures as insets in the regional maps to reduce the number of figures.

Some minor comments related to the text concern:

1) Page 1, Line 34: define the abbreviation “FSP”.

2) Provide the definition of μ in Eq.(1).

3) In Page 9, Line 32, the numbering of the referred equations is probably wrong.

4) Replace 2030 with 2040 in Fig.11b or replace with the correct figure.

5) Correct the first word in Page 16, Line 1.

In this paper the authors evaluate how the main active faults might respond to hypothetical injected-related pore pressure increases during production in the Matouying Enhanced Geothermal System field. They performed both probabilistic and deterministic analyses of fault slip potential. In my opinion the paper should be considered for publication if the authors could address the following comments in addition to those already provided by referees #1 and #2:

1) I suggest to use the thermoporoelasticity equation instead of the simple elasticity equation (eq. 1 in your manuscript) to evaluate the critical shear stress. This will help you to consider also the effect of temperature changes on stress, in addition to your different injection scenarios, in a more comprehensive way with respect to what you did in section 8.3.

2) It would be interesting if you will consider (and discuss) also other commonly accepted models to estimate the expected maximum magnitude (e.g., Shapiro et al. (2011), Van der Elst et al. (2016)).

Additional minor comment:

- At line 19 of the Abstract I suggest to substitute "Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) field" with "Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) field"