Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
European Tech Sovereignty
17MAY

MOFCOM names five Chinese refineries under Blocking Rules

4 min read
14:28UTC

China's Ministry of Commerce identified the five refineries shielded from OFAC compliance under its 2 May Blocking Rules order: Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian), Shandong Shouguang Luqing, Shandong Jincheng, Hebei Xinhai Chemical, and Shandong Shengxing.

TechnologyDeveloping
Key takeaway

The OFAC enforcement counterparty is now named at entity level; each new US designation lands in a clearer Chinese counter-frame.

MOFCOM, China's Ministry of Commerce, published on 2 May 2026 the five Chinese refineries protected under its Blocking Rules order: Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian), Shandong Shouguang Luqing, Shandong Jincheng, Hebei Xinhai Chemical, and Shandong Shengxing. 1 The activation of the 2021 Blocking Rules was already documented ; the public identification of the five protected entities is the new beat.

The Blocking Rules are China's 2021 statutory instrument allowing Chinese parties to defy extraterritorial foreign sanctions and recover damages through Chinese courts. The order forbids the named refineries from complying with OFAC's Iran sanctions regime, which had previously designated Hengli Petrochemical under sanction package SB0472 with a General Licence V wind-down . Hengli alone runs 400,000 barrels per day at Dalian, making it China's second-largest independent refinery; it is also the most exposed of the five to OFAC secondary-sanction action, which is why MOFCOM placed it at the top of the list.

The named list creates two operational facts. First, the protected refineries can now legally process Iranian crude under Chinese law without exposure to civil liability inside China for the same activity that creates US sanctions exposure. Second, the OFAC enforcement counterparty is now identified; any further US designations under the GL-W toll alert will hit named entities the Chinese state has explicitly placed under protection, raising the diplomatic cost of each new designation. The four other refineries, all Shandong or Hebei independents, sit further down the OFAC priority list and were probably named to spread the political cost of the carve-out beyond a single flagship plant.

The sequencing matters. MOFCOM published the names on the same Sunday Trump announced Project Freedom and Pakistan delivered the first US written reply . The Chinese counter-sanctions architecture is now visible at the entity level for the first time since the war began; the next OFAC tier of designations against named recipients, charity rails, embassies, or FX houses, will land in a clearer Chinese counter-frame than any previous round.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

China published the names of five oil refineries it is legally shielding from US sanctions. The refineries are among those the US Treasury has tried to penalise for buying Iranian oil, which is under US sanctions because of the Iran war. China's 2021 Blocking Rules bar Chinese companies from following US sanctions that Beijing has declared illegal. MOFCOM's published list names the five refineries specifically shielded, creating a direct conflict between Chinese law and OFAC's existing Hengli designation. It also creates a new legal right: any Chinese company that loses business because someone else obeyed US sanctions can now sue in Chinese courts for compensation.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

China's publication of the five named refineries reflects a structural dependency the Blocking Rules are designed to protect: Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) alone processes 400,000 bpd, a capacity that cannot be easily replaced with non-Iranian crude at current OPEC output levels. The four smaller Shandong refineries collectively represent approximately 200,000 bpd of additional Iranian crude processing capacity. Together they account for a meaningful share of China's independent refining sector.

The Blocking Rules activation also reflects a domestic political calculation. Chinese industrial ministries have lobbied for MOFCOM to protect refineries facing direct OFAC designation since the Hengli SB0472 action in April. Publishing the five names converts a regulatory dispute into a national-interest protection framing, giving MOFCOM cover to escalate if OFAC responds with additional designations.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    A publicly named Chinese Blocking Rules list creates a direct conflict of law that OFAC must address. If OFAC designates the five named refineries as blocked persons, it forces third-country banks and insurers to choose between US and Chinese legal obligations, fragmenting the dollar-based sanctions architecture.

    Medium term · 0.73
  • Risk

    Article 9's private right of action in Chinese courts creates litigation exposure for any Western shipping, banking, or insurance firm that has complied with OFAC designations against Hengli, even if that compliance occurred before the Blocking Rules were activated.

    Short term · 0.66
  • Consequence

    The five-refinery list is a floor, not a ceiling. If OFAC adds additional Chinese refinery designations, MOFCOM has the legal architecture to expand the named list without passing new legislation.

    Medium term · 0.79
First Reported In

Update #88 · 15,000 troops unsigned; Pakistan carries first reply

Geopolitechs / Business Today Malaysia· 4 May 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
MOFCOM names five Chinese refineries under Blocking Rules
The named-refinery list is the operational substance of an order whose activation was already known; the public identification of beneficiaries crystallises the China carve-out from US Iran sanctions.
Different Perspectives
OpenForum Europe / open-source community
OpenForum Europe / open-source community
The EUR 350m Sovereign Tech Fund has no Commission host, no budget line, and no commissioner's name attached six weeks after the April conference, while Germany is already paying maintainers to staff international standards bodies. The CRA open-source guidance resolves contributor liability but leaves the financial-donations grey area open with the 11 September reporting clock running.
ASML / Christophe Fouquet
ASML / Christophe Fouquet
ASML's Q2 guidance miss of roughly EUR 300m below consensus reflects DUV revenue compression set by US export controls, not European policy. Fouquet said 2026 guidance accommodates potential outcomes of ongoing US-China trade discussions; a bipartisan US bill to tighten DUV sales further would accelerate the cross-subsidy thinning Chips Act II's equity authority is designed to address.
Anne Le Henanff / French G7 Presidency
Anne Le Henanff / French G7 Presidency
Le Henanff chairs the 29 May Bercy ministerial two days after Brussels adopts the Tech Sovereignty Package, making the G7 communique the first international read of the Omnibus enforcement split and CAIDA's scope. France's Cloud au Centre doctrine is already operational via the Scaleway Health Data Hub contract.
German federal government
German federal government
Berlin operationalises sovereignty through procurement mandates (the ODF requirement and the Sovereign Tech Standards programme) rather than waiting for Commission legislation. The Bundeskartellamt has still not received the Cohere-Aleph Alpha merger filing, leaving Germany's flagship AI champion in structural limbo six weeks after the deal resolved.
US Trade Representative
US Trade Representative
The USTR Section 301 investigation into EU digital rules closes with a 24 July 2026 final determination. CAIDA's public-sector cloud restriction sits within the criteria that triggered the 2020 Section 301 action against France's digital services tax, and the US has not signalled whether the Thales-Google S3NS arrangement resolves CLOUD Act jurisdiction concerns.
CISPE / Valentina Mingorance
CISPE / Valentina Mingorance
CISPE shipped its own pass-fail sovereignty badge in April to establish an industry-auditable floor the Commission could adopt. Whether CAIDA inherits the CISPE binary or the multi-tier SEAL approach will determine whether certification is enforceable by public contracting authorities or requires Commission discretion.