Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

MOFCOM names five Chinese refineries under Blocking Rules

4 min read
13:55UTC

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.

ConflictDeveloping
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
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.