Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
3SEP

MOFCOM names five Chinese refineries under Blocking Rules

4 min read
16:40UTC

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
China's foreign ministry
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.
Jordan's Armed Forces
Jordan's Armed Forces
Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.
CENTCOM
CENTCOM
CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.