I read it...
...yawn.
First of all, while it is "peer-reviewed", the Journal of Scientific Exploration is not regognized as a Scientific Journal by any rational scientist I know. I believe we've had this discussion before about this particular journal.
Second, the only conclusion of the two samples analyzed is that the samples were ordinary dirt, and that they were not affected by drilling. Which is supposed to make us believe the conclusions drawn by the witnesses.
We've also discussed sampling procedures before, and two samples does not a representative sample set make.
Also, if you can't provide a certificate from a lab about analysis, throw that data out.
Sorry Lindy, this particular article is worthless.