Majority Vote Says ‘No’ to Drill Ban Referendum

Peters Township’s prayers were answered—well, mailings—Tuesday night as residents ultimately voted “no” on the drill ban referendum.

What does this mean?

For one, township Manager Michael Silvestri said he's hoping that everyone understands that council's position wasn't for or against gas drilling, but rather to protect the integrity of the Home Rule Charter—including uncessary lawsuits and wasting money, he said. 

Specifically, if approved, council said the referendum would have: 

• Seized residents’ property (mineral rights) without due process and also, without compensation for those rights.
• Would have denied individual property owners the right to collect royalty income from gas deposits.
• May have significantly raised township property taxes;
• And, may have bankrupted Peters Township by creating a barrage of lawsuits from many groups including township residents, gas lease holders, farms and the gas drilling companies.

Post-election, drilling will be permitted—under the .

As for a time frame? Any time, Silvestri said, or once the application process begins.

The process, he said, usually takes a couple of months as hearings would progress and the state process would start—a combination of both, he said.

"Right now, I don't know if any of the gas companies have enough leases to put together to make a unit for Peters Township," Silvestri said.

"I’m hoping that after this is over maybe we can better it from both sides—to protect (our township)."

Councilman Jim Berquist said council has been told it has one of the strongest ordinances passed to date, and as for any personal agendas—there are none, he said.

“I don’t want a drill rig in Peters, absolutely not," he said. "But, I had no authority and ability to prevent it—the state has that responsibility. Above and beyond that, it’s illegal.

“Parts of the ordinance,” which the township revised via three public hearings, "can be challenged—we might have legal fees to defend that challenge. But, as for an outright ban? That would mean legal fees, in addition to financial responsible to all parties and leaseholders alike.”

Berquist said he was extremely disappointed in the way that the voters were being accosted at the polls Tuesday.

"I thought it was was absolutely wrong," he said. "A lot of people were complaining.

"(Council) has taken the abuse for more than a year from this contingency," referring to the Peters Township Marcellus Shale Awareness & Action organization," unrelenting in any compromise. It's their way or the highway—nothing else. That's not democracy, that's fascism.

"We can have a conversation—we can be civil about this," Berquist continued. "Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

"At the end of the day, an ordinance can stand up. It'll be an interesting process to see."