It strikes me as really unnatural that someone would go on for two paragraphs like that
I do like conservation of detail, and I sometimes am forced to point out unnaturally long-winded segments of dialogue. Usually in these cases, it's due to the author committing expo-sin-tion, and bloating the dialogue with story. Here, the dialogue does indeed go on for while, but it's overall pretty competent in masking the story, and it does feel like an actual recounting of events from an actual person as opposed to a story-touting mouthpiece… sure, there's a couple parts that do go on, but it makes sense for the interviewer to allow them to say their piece without too much interjection - he's telling them just about everything they need to know. In such a setting, I imagine you'd want to give the guy breathing room to fill in the blanks.
There's a couple places that could stand to have some superfluous details shaved off, definitely, but it doesn't strike me as unnatural.