No. Serious question.
I got interested in geology while still in grade school. Way back then they were talking about injecting water into faults to relieve stresses. I recall they did that in CA with some success in the 80s. I also recall that much of this 'discovery process' was the result of research into geothermal technologies, resulting in study of the then-unknown consequent effects of deep drilling & fluid injection: seismic activity. I'm struggling to find any archive that old. However, I did find this LONG list of references dating back pre-70s for some of them:
http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/induceq/iis.html
The anti-fracking camp uses anything & everything to tarnish the practice. I don't agree with the petrochemical industry's practice of injecting production-waste chemicals into old wells OR the same's use for fracking, but the knee-jerk reaction of the industry to earthquake activity in areas coincidentally siting fracking is 'we don't cause earthquakes'; the opponents naturally use any data opposing fracking to their benefit.
In the 80s, scientists began to make connections between water levels in deep water wells & seismic activity:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1980/1141/report.pdf
From the government side, a report on earthquake hazard reduction:
http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/2013ACEHRReportFeb27.pdf
Not trying to shore up the 'other side', but this from 1980 is titled, 'Measuring the Risks of Waste Disposal by Deep-Well Injection':
http://vwrrc.vt.edu/pdfs/bulletins/1980/bulletin122.pdf
And here's the EPA's (barf, but good analysis) take on it, citing events back to the '60s:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/uicundergroundinjectionandseismicactivitydec2010.pdf
A report from 1993 with LOTS of citations/references
http://geosurvey.state.co.us/hazards/Earthquakes/Documents/ERC/FLUID%20INJECTION%20CAUSE%20EARTHQUAKES%20ASSESSMENT-DAVIS%20AND%20FROHLICH%201993.pdf
And I found a study on deep well injection & earthquake activity dating to the early 60s
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php
This purely-defensive piece of garbage illustrates part of my point
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/next_up_on_the_fracking_fear-mongering_list_earthquakes.html
Here's a USGS Powerpoint on the topic
http://www.usgs.gov/solutions/ppt/2012june08_leith.pptx
Again, clarity: I am NOT anti-fracking. Much like on nuclear, I'm anti-stupid. I've already made my facetious clarifications. If you agree with the hypocrisy I've outlined here, you'll also be ROFLYAO over the State of CA siting a fracking site over a major fault. I am.
In closing, from the 1993 study:
In evaluating the seismic hazard from fluid injection projects, we encourage people to assess the magnitudes of potential earthquakes. Many injection situations are similar to those where small earthquakes may be induced, but the likely fault areas and fault slips would pose little or no hazard for most engineering applications. However, where there are concerns about the possible damage from induced seismic activity, it would be prudent to take appropriate precautions (Nicholson and Wesson, 1990; Cypser and Davis, 1993). These precautions might include evaluating the site for the potential of induced seismic hazard, and monitoring the injection site for seismic activity.Maybe Department of Oil, Gas & Geothermal's (DOGGR) Geologist should have done his/her homework...