Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
SINALOA DRUG CARTEL V. Drug Enforcement Agency
Cocaine Trafficking Network within the United States
LT YoungLT FosterLT Carline
Primary means are private and commercial vehicles.
Favor particular routes to supply U.S drug markets.
Drug Movement Within the United States
Cocaine is widely available throughout the country.
Demand for illicit drugs in United States is rising.
Real World Problem
55125
48
50
MAJOR CITY DISTRIBUTION HUBS
Major city distribution hubs have a maximum limitation on the quantity of metric tons of cocaine which can remain in the city for distribution.
City’s demand for drugs is a function of its metro population and the total population of destination cities.
Metropolitan Demand
DESTINATION CITIES METRO POPULATION >1 MIL
DESTINATION CITIES 1 MIL>METRO POPULATION >500,000
DESTINATION CITIES METRO POPULATION<500,000
> 1 Million
.5-1 Million
> .5 Million
The cartel has well-developed transportation and distribution networks within the U.S.
Extensive network of cities to facilitate the the cartel’s trafficking operations within the U.S.
Destination cities represent the network nodes.
Network Operation
Interdictions by the Drug Enforcement Agency
Attacks for the cartel to use alternate routes for distribution of the supply to the final destination major city.
Attack
Maximize distribution
Maximize profit
Minimize interdiction
Max-Flow Model
Max Flow LP
Primal Dual
, ,,
, ,( , ) ( , )
, ,( , ) ( , )
, ,( , ) ( , )
, ,
max 1.1
. .0, ,
received i j i ji j
i s s i senti s s i
i t t i receivedi t t i
a i a a ii a a i
i j i j
V x Y
y y V
y y Vs t
y y a s t
Y u
, ,,
, ,
,
min
0 1.10
. .10
i j i ji j
j j i i j i j
s
t
i j
u
X
s t
278 metric tons
Overall expected seizure percentage is approximately 10%
Quantifications
Border seizures
Drug distribution to cities
Constant seizure rate
Model Assumptions
Abstract Network
Update 7 June 2007 19
Start SanDiego LA
End
Tucson
TUDAL Dallas
SDLA
interdiction plan with 0 Attacks:flow with interdictions in place = 251.2
interdiction plan with 1 Attacks: attack arc: San Diego -> LAflow with interdictions in place = 245.6
interdiction plan with 2 Attacks: attack arc: San Diego -> LA attack arc: San Diego -> DENflow with interdictions in place = 215.7
interdiction plan with 3 Attacks: attack arc: Laredo -> HOU attack arc: San Diego -> LA attack arc: San Diego -> DENflow with interdictions in place = 213.2
interdiction plan with 4 Attacks: attack arc: Chicago -> NY attack arc: Jacksonville -> NY attack arc: SanDiego -> LA attack arc: Tucson -> PHXflow with interdictions in place = 206.7
interdiction plan with 5 Attacks: attack arc: Chicago -> NY attack arc: ElPaso -> HOU attack arc: Jacksonville -> NY attack arc: Laredo -> HOU attack arc: SanDiego -> LAflow with interdictions in place = 197.9
interdiction plan with 6 Attacks: attack arc: Chicago -> NY attack arc: ElPaso -> HOU attack arc: Jacksonville -> NY attack arc: Laredo -> HOU attack arc: SanDiego -> LA attack arc: Tucson -> PHXflow with interdictions in place = 176.8
Operator Resilience Curve
0 2 4 6 8 10 12110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
Total Metric Tons of Cocaine Received
Number of Attacks
Tota
l Met
ric T
ons
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Potential Cocaine DemandM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 AttackM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2 AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4 AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5 AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6 AttacksM
etric
ton
s
SanDieg
o
Phoeni
x
LosAng
eles
Chica
go
Housto
n
NewYor
kDall
asSea
ttleDetr
oitElP
aso
Washing
tonDC
Jackso
nville
Tucson
Lared
oDen
ver
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Metric Tons Received per City
0 attacks1 attack2 attacks3 attacks4 attacks5 attacks6 attacks
All cases: Maximize Chicago, Dallas, Detroit
If no pending attacks, maximize Los Angeles
1-3 attacks, maximize Houston, New York
4-6 attacks maximize Washington DC
Recommendations for El Chapo
Fails to display all possible transit paths for the cartel, i.e. back roads.
Does not account for the time for the routes to transit drugs
Does not account for alternative methods such as noncommercial vessels, ultralight aircraft, freight trains, and tunnels
LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS
Smuggling routes within Mexico
Production of the drugs within the United States
Drug distribution operations gangs migrating to areas in Great Lakes, Pacific, and west central regions to expand drug distribution
FUTURE WORK
National Drug Threat Assessment 2011◦ National Drug Intelligence Center◦www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf
www.justice.gov/dea
REFERENCES
QUESTIONS?