Iron Miners
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:08 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: County drops plan for museum at Huber Breaker
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:00 pm
Posts: 246
Location: From Schuylkill County, PA living in Phoenix, AZ
County drops plan for museum at Huber Breaker in Ashley

Commissioner Urban said cash-strapped government can’t afford $7M price for property.


By Jennifer Learn-Andes
Wilkes-Barre Times Leader
January 7, 2009

It’s looking like the landmark Huber Breaker in Ashley won’t be purchased and restored by Luzerne County government.

County minority Commissioner Stephen A. Urban said Tuesday that he can’t justify paying the $7 million asking price.

No. 1 Contracting, the property owner, has argued the property is worth $7 million, in large part due to coal deposits it may contain, county officials have said.

“I’m still supportive of the project, but not to pay $7 million for mineral rights that in my opinion don’t exist and are not reachable,â€

_________________
View More of My Photos At:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=10145

http://mst145.rrpicturearchives.net/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:41 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: Hard coal region, PA
Theres so much that can be done there... that place could be an amazing landmark is it wasn't for greed. :evil:

_________________
This ain't longwall... this is long hole!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1501
Location: Central Ohio
Now that is interesting.

_________________
Pioneering the next INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (Preservation ! ). . . Saving equipment (1) mine site at a time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:43 pm
Posts: 925
Location: Western PA
ANOTHER SETBACK!!!

_________________
-Thou shalt not little vein-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:09 pm
Posts: 488
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
:evil: :x :evil: :x THATS ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT!!!

_________________
Dunder Mifflin, the people persons paper people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 788
$100,000.00 just for a fence ? Or am I just reading that wrong ? Second are they talking about the whole 24 or 26 acres or just the site and the buildings ? and if it is the whole 24 or 26 acres, why ? All they need is the buildings. And the land they sit on ? But mainly the breaker itself. Yes alot of work needs to be done. But my opinion is if they just sealed up the breaker, replaced the broken glass. Just the breaker itself is an imposing structure. It initself makes for a jhuge landmark without tours inside. Then when " better" economic times return. The explore opeing up the inside for tours. Guess Im trying to say for right now why cant they just purchase and secure the breaker and adjoining buildings. So that perhaps future preservationists can refurbish it inside ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:34 pm
Posts: 6906
Location: Within 60 Miles of the Northern Anthracite Field
once this breaker is torn down this will be a perfect location for the new ashley wal*mart! :roll:

_________________
Come over to the Dark Side....... We have Cookies!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 2:14 am
Posts: 551
Location: Binghamton, NY
Ya, or a breaker replica, 1/10th the size. 20 years from now.

_________________
jdr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:11 pm
Posts: 899
Location: NEPA
The original idea was to take the breaker via eminent domain. Once the county had it the next step was to fence in the breaker,foothouse,foreign coal dump, and the power house. Thats all the county wanted too,not all 26 acres. Once that was done the next step would have been stabilizing the buildings. The general idea was not to not really do much with the breaker itself but to turn the power house into the museum at least early on anyway. The only thing the Huber has going for it now is that scrap prices dropped big time and with the amount of concrete in that building it wouldn't pay to tear it down with the intent of making money on the scrap. Plus there are numerous environmental issues that would have to be delt with,PCB's,Asbestos,Lead, and whatever else would show up along the way!

_________________
"We don't look for any money all we look for is a little help and the only help we get is for the government to shut us down and if you go to the gas station and buy the gas you'll see why..........................you'll see why"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:33 pm
Posts: 3088
Location: Above the Sterling Hill Mine
Yes, greed is the problem here. They certainly don't need the mineral rights as there will never be any plans to continue mining there. The mineral rights may have no value anyway as I believe the workings there are flooded and it probably would never be approved to dewater those workings in fear of subsidences. The town would never allow stripping right there additionally..

Miner Greg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:11 pm
Posts: 899
Location: NEPA
Right about now the current owner is probably wishing he would have asked a much more reasonable amount of money for the Breaker. If he would have the county would allready own it. He proded the county into action by saying somebody wanted the land to build a Ryder or U haul service center on. Doesn't make sense really when less than two miles away there are acres of land ready for just such a building in the Industrial Park!

_________________
"We don't look for any money all we look for is a little help and the only help we get is for the government to shut us down and if you go to the gas station and buy the gas you'll see why..........................you'll see why"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 788
2 + 2 always equals four. Something just doesnt add up in this picture. Mineral rights ? With all the development in the northern field. I am sure there have been areas with far more accessable anthracite deposits below. Yet you never hear of mineral rights mentioned in sale prices. Especialy considering the enviromental implications involved. In most instances the price of raw anthracite is so low that to mine it, and ship it to the breaker doesnt warrant removing it. Plus I think Chris & banks have the maps under the site. Most except for the small reserves left under the breaker site have been second or third mined. So tear down the breaker ( low scrap prices) deal with the enviromental problems on the site ( asbestos, lead, PCB's etc) then go through the permit process to strip the area ( deep mining is out of the question as the water pool is only about 20 ft. below that site) all just to remove the coal ? And think your going to make a profit on it/ ??? So the mineral rights are pretty much worthless. Ok Ill stop now . Its just a shame. Some people realize what the breaker is worth in a historical context. And its still going to be let go. Almost a replay of the Marvin in North Scranton. Except now people realize the historical value. Not like when the Marvin was torn down. ( or Sulliven trail, Lorree, or Harry E. the list could go on)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:33 pm
Posts: 3088
Location: Above the Sterling Hill Mine
If they wanted to get any more coal below 20 feet, they'd have to dewater this stripping pit in the middle of the city of Ashley.. But since the barrier pillars are probably breached, it would lower the mine pool in the whole area.. Thus without the hydraulic pressure from the mine pool, you might have to worry about subsidences around these people's homes and businesses.

Are there any types of regulations that prohibit dewatering of the mine pools in the northern field because of fears from subsidences? If that is the case, the mineral rights would probably be completely useless other than that 20 feet of coal which probably would not ever be profitable to mine.

Miner Greg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 788
To give you an idea of the amount of water that would have to be pumped. I have copies of the minutes of a meeting that was held October 14 1960. At the time only Huber and Woodward were being mined. A quote by a Mr. Bradbury president of Glen Alden corp.

" Since the Knox disaster our pumping load increased from 1,900,000,000 gallons in January to 4,000,000,000 gallons per month at present. That takes power and it is killing us." THIS WAS FOR LUZERNE COUNTY ONLY. So to strip all the coal out of the Huber area. That is probably the amount of water that would have to be pumped out of the pit. Or deep mine. And I believe that was before the Lackawanna basin overflowed into the Wyoming basin in which the Huber is located.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 788
It seems there is two trains of thought when it comes to lowering the water pool, and subsidences. In theory the hydraulic preassure should support the roof. So lowering the pool would result in subsidences. Whenever the pool rises or lowers due to the change of seasons. We do experience more subsidences. BUT at the end or the huge flushing project era in our area, the veins or beds that were filled with water, were flushed. Whereas in the early years of flushing they were not. This was done out of fear that the hydraulic preassure alone would not support the overlying surface. As with anything in mining. No one persons or persons have an agreement on a subject. But I would agree that lowering the water pool would have some effect. The variable being the rock cover. In Pittston after Knox ( and even to this day) there were massive subsidences. This was due to the fact that in that area there was only about a foot of rock, and then " wash" or soil. So the waters eroded the rock cover. leaving only the water to support the surface (?). After KNOX when they pumped the water out, There was another round of subsidences when the water was lowered.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group