SINALOA DRUG CARTEL V. Drug Enforcement Agency

1. SINALOA DRUG CARTEL V. Drug Enforcement Agency Cocaine Trafficking Network within the United States LT Young LT Foster LT Carline

3. Drug Movement Within the United States • Primary means are private and commercial vehicles. • Favor particular routes to supply U.S drug markets.

4. Real World Problem • Cocaine is widely available throughout the country. • Demand for illicit drugs in United States is rising.

5. MAJOR CITY DISTRIBUTION HUBS 55 125 48 50

6. Metropolitan Demand • 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.

7. DESTINATION CITIES METRO POPULATION >1 MIL

8. DESTINATION CITIES 1 MIL>METRO POPULATION >500,000

9. DESTINATION CITIES METRO POPULATION<500,000

10. > 1 Million .5-1 Million > .5 Million

11. Network Operation • 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.

13. Attack • 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.

14. Max-Flow Model • Maximize distribution • Maximize profit • Minimize interdiction

15. Max Flow LP Primal Dual

16. Quantifications • 278 metric tons • Overall expected seizure percentage is approximately 10%

17. Model Assumptions • Border seizures • Drug distribution to cities • Constant seizure rate

18. Abstract Network

19. Dallas End TUDAL Tucson LA San Diego SDLA Start Update 7 June 2007

20. interdiction plan with 0 Attacks: flow with interdictions in place = 251.2

21. interdiction plan with 1 Attacks: attack arc: San Diego -> LA flow with interdictions in place = 245.6

22. interdiction plan with 2 Attacks: attack arc: San Diego -> LA attack arc: San Diego -> DEN flow with interdictions in place = 215.7

23. interdiction plan with 3 Attacks: attack arc: Laredo -> HOU attack arc: San Diego -> LA attack arc: San Diego -> DEN flow with interdictions in place = 213.2

24. interdiction plan with 4 Attacks: attack arc: Chicago -> NY attack arc: Jacksonville -> NY attack arc: SanDiego -> LA attack arc: Tucson -> PHX flow with interdictions in place = 206.7

25. interdiction plan with 5 Attacks: attack arc: Chicago -> NY attack arc: ElPaso -> HOU attack arc: Jacksonville -> NY attack arc: Laredo -> HOU attack arc: SanDiego -> LA flow with interdictions in place = 197.9

26. 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 -> PHX flow with interdictions in place = 176.8

27. Operator Resilience Curve

37. Recommendations for El Chapo • 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

38. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS • 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

39. FUTURE WORK • 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

40. REFERENCES • National Drug Threat Assessment 2011 • National Drug Intelligence Center • www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/​44849p.pdf • www.justice.gov/dea

41. QUESTIONS?