freetown fred wrote:
OK, then if you weren't happy with the coal you SAW, why'd ya buy it? John explained that they were in a stage of possibly upgrading equipment wise to solve sizing & quality problems but wanted to get a feel for demand. To compare this stuff to UAE or Blashak just seems silly to me--let's face it, the old--" you get what you pay for" still goes real far in my world. Just saying
I didn't say I was happy or unhappy with the coal. I just said the stuff I say wasn't as good looking as the pictures seemed. Not much shiny stuff.
I bought it to try it. I don't like buying something that hasn't been rated, sight unseen, especially 24 tons of it.
I also needed some rice coal (which I could have gotten anywhere). But a casual trip into coal country with a few stops along the way gave me a nice weekend away with the wife.
Just trying to give some honest opinions and info without being to biased.
If NA improves the coal, great. If they don't, it still may be a good option for some, but there seem to be some rather fussy coal burners out there.
I don't think anybody is saying it has to be as good as a high quality coal, but the only way to compare is to compare against a know quality standard.
Bottom line for me is:
1. Does it burn without problems.
2. Dollars per million btu's. - After all factors considered.
If I burn more lower quality coal without problems but it costs a lot less and the dollars spent are less, then I will probably go with the lower quality coal.
PS - The rocks and clinkers could be a problem for some.