As a working and practicing Geophysicist, no I do not agree. Using your logic you could make the case that every drill hole testing geology interpretation that fails to prove the model correct is not worth doing.
These are incredibly complicated geological systems being surveyed. If it was easy it would have been found before and it is only with current technology that these avenues have been opened to us.
I am not talking about seismics. But potential field Electromagnetics data.
So you know, deep penetration Geophysics is an ever evolving space. These types of surveys have only recently (in the last 5 to 10 years) been made possible with great leaps in technology (recording systems, geophysical transmitters and computing power for inversion).
We can now image down to 500m in Australia but that is restricted due to conductive overburden. Not so in Canada so we can see much deeper. In some cases 1km or more.
But that all depends on the model. Models to be accurate need data. From different geophysical techniques, geochem, mapping and drilling to name a few. One technique will not allow you to put a 10 inch drill hole through the hole of a conductor everytime.
What irks me is when people grossly over simplify the thought that goes into planning, executing (field effort) and modelling. It is certainly not a haphazard approach.
Treat everything with skeptism. For the record I am probably more skeptical than most with a lot of published Geophysics (not just SGQ) but then again I know how easy it is to adjust your colour scale to make the red blobs stand out more
(20min delay)