Petra, generally large quakes in California would initiate below 10 km, and oil extraction is above, say, 3 or 4 or 5 km (sometimes 1 km...). Extracting fluid/gas would tend to decrease fluid pressure on the fault and make them stronger, and delay large quakes in areas where faults are being loaded by plate tectonics/block motion, or prevent them in intraplate areas. But, oil production is usually associated with fluid or gas injection to keep reservoir pressures up. Increased fluid pressure in faults weakens them (as in water reservoir-induced seismicity). So, one of the Superman movies (was there also a James Bond movie?) had it partly right that the bad guys were injecting water into the San Andreas fault to set it off (to submerge silicon valley or something like that). I have my doubts that Superman could actually stop the earthquake once it started-but, who knows-he is Superman, after all. OK, it was not possible-the rock is not strong enough-he would have just torn through the rock. So, you would have to inject fluid at just the right spot, and conditions would have to allow it to get down to depth, and the fault would have to be fairly ripe.

Direct answers-no, I don't think that there was a cause/effect in the 2 cases you mention. Had a bit of an interesting interaction with Cal Energy a few years ago. They are producing geothermal energy at the south end of Salton Sea-essentially manipulating fluids directly in the Brawley zone which includes the San Andreas fault (proper, in my opinion). We were trying to get a collaboration with them for a (unsuccessful in 4 submissions) proposal. When they heard I was working with N.S. from Lamont, they decided they could not work with us, because they did not like there papers about EQ triggering in that area...
Chris