Let me break it down for you. It started by asking how to...

Let me break it down for you.

It started by asking how to interpret the last paragraph.

We gave two different reasons for why it would “cost them elsewhere” (other electorates) according to the author:
1) I suggested it was “economic impact”
2) Justadabble said it was voters liking the idea of NSW supply and CCS.

I then suggested he read the second last paragraph which literally says the following: “despite its proposed project being a much-needed boost for the South Australian economy”… sooo…. According to the sentence immediately preceding what we were referring to, it implies the impact of denying a similar project affects the economy.

I thought people would understand my logic by reading the second last paragraph, however, since you think I was “shut-down” I can tell, either, you didn’t read it or the cognitive bias preventing you from believing I was right was just too strong. This is why I didn’t want to argue, I thought it was already easily understood who was correct.

So if you wanted to join the discussion you would consider why it would “cost the Government elsewhere” by denying PEP-11 according to the author, is it because the author thought that it would give the state electorates money or an “economic boost” as the author clearly erroneously claimed in the second last paragraph for a comparable project or is it because people won’t like the Government for denying it, for the reason that Justadabble gave which was that voters might want a NSW gas supply and CCS.

Please note, CCS was not even mentioned, so this can’t be a reason according to the author/article due to context (you can’t expect the reader to think that is what the author meant if he didn’t even comment on CCS).