At the beginning of September, a seemingly ordinary notice sent ripples through the commodity market, like a stone thrown into a calm lake.

China Minmetals Group issued clear instructions to domestic buyers, requiring them to temporarily stop accepting iron ore priced in US dollars from BHP.

This move is no small matter.

BHP, an Australian mining giant, holds a significant position in the industry; while China, as the world's largest importer of iron ore, accounts for more than 70% of global seaborne iron ore imports annually.

The buyer suddenly halting procurement is not due to a disappearance of demand for iron ore, but rather a clear stance on the transaction method.

In short, the issue is not with the quality of the goods, but the settlement method that the buyer finds unacceptable.

This incident did not erupt without warning.

Since late August this year, China has been in a deadlock with several major miners over pricing issues, particularly regarding discounted pricing for medium-grade iron ore, and the two sides have failed to reach an agreement.

BHP took a firm stance during negotiations, showing little sign of concession, which led to a prolonged stalemate.

And at this time, the news of the procurement suspension spread, and the timing was quite revealing.

The Australian government responded quickly.

In mid-September, Prime Minister Albanese expressed "regret" over China's decision during an interview in Canberra, and stated his hope for a swift resumption of normal trade relations.

However, China did not immediately make adjustments.

This action is not an emotional impulsive act, but rather a carefully planned strategic move.

For many who pay attention to international trade, it seems like a well-prepared chess game, the key being when to make the move.

For many years, the iron ore market has been dominated by three giants: BHP, Rio Tinto, and Vale.

They control core resources and transportation channels, having absolute say in everything from mining to pricing.

Even with large buyers, they could only follow the rules set by these companies.

Especially for China, the world's largest steel producer, it has long been in a passive position in procurement, not only bearing high prices but also having to settle in US dollars, with its profit margins severely compressed.

But now, the situation has changed.

China's steel production capacity has stopped growing, and demand has become more rational.

Meanwhile, the profits of the miners have been rising year by year.

This unfair distribution of benefits has prompted the domestic industry to reevaluate: with such a vast market, why does it have so little voice?

Since 2022, the emergence of China Minmetals Group was not merely an organizational restructuring, but a comprehensive reshaping of the supply chain.

Previously, dozens of steel mills each acted independently in procurement, making it difficult to form unified bargaining power and prone to being divided by miners.

Now, with this unified platform negotiating on behalf, managing procurement plans and demands centrally, it naturally has stronger control over prices.

The decision to suspend procurement may be a trial action under this unified mechanism.

In this incident, the key is not the suspension of procurement itself, but the clear emphasis on not accepting "US dollar priced" goods.

The deep meaning behind this statement is self-evident: China hopes to gradually reduce its reliance on the US dollar in commodity trade and promote the RMB as a more commonly used settlement currency.

In fact, as early as ten years ago, China had attempted to use the RMB for iron ore transactions, which was still in the pilot stage and of relatively small scale.

But in recent years, with the rapid development of cross-border payment technology and the increasing emphasis on monetary independence at the national level, the promotion of RMB settlement has accelerated significantly.

During the first half of this year, multiple large-scale iron ore transactions were successfully settled in RMB, with the process becoming smoother and the acceptance among enterprises continuously improving.

The decision to suspend procurement, on the surface, is a response to the failure to reach an agreement on pricing, but in reality, it is a powerful push for the institutionalization of RMB settlement.

Through actual trading behavior, forcing suppliers to accept RMB settlement, this is no longer just an initiative, but has become a real trading condition.

This is not merely a change in the name of the currency, but a profound transformation of the entire trading system.

From bank financing, settlement systems, to exchange rate risk control, RMB settlement means that China's voice in the entire trading process is increasingly strengthening.

For many exporting countries, China is their largest customer. If they do not accept RMB settlement, they may lose this vast market in the future.

This procurement interruption, although appearing to be a superficial operation, actually touches the foundation of the global resource pricing system.

Over the past few decades, the US dollar has not only been the transaction currency, but also the benchmark for global pricing.

Whether it is iron ore, crude oil or grain, almost all major commodities are priced in US dollars, and suppliers gain not only the proceeds but also the control over the currency system.

However, more and more countries are beginning to think about whether to continue relying on the US dollar.

China's series of measures are active responses to the global trend of "de-dollarization."

Especially in 2025, a special year, the international situation is becoming increasingly complex, and the voices of emerging markets are growing louder.

To establish a solid foothold in the international market, the RMB cannot rely solely on slogans, but needs to be supported by real transaction volumes and usage scenarios.

This incident also shows that RMB settlement is no longer an unreachable goal, but has already become a reality.

In the coming months, whether more suppliers will accept RMB settlement, and whether other resources will adopt similar trading methods, are all worth close attention.

The decision to suspend procurement does not mean that China does not need iron ore, nor is it creating confrontation.

Essentially, it is a fierce battle over transaction methods, pricing power, and the currency system.

China's position is clear: if suppliers want to continue doing business, they must consider adopting new settlement rules.

If they are unwilling to cooperate, they can only seek other partners.

BHP is not the only iron ore supplier for China.

The Simandou mine in Guinea is accelerating construction and is expected to officially start production by the end of the year.

This mineral deposit is rich in resources, and the transportation routes are also being planned. Once connected, it will become an important supply point outside Australia.

Additionally, domestic iron ore development is also accelerating. Although the quality and output are still not as good as imported iron ore, they are sufficient as a supplement.

More importantly, the technology for recycling scrap steel is becoming increasingly mature, and some cities' steel mills have already achieved high proportions of recycled production.

These changes indicate that China is no longer a market that can only rely on imports, but a major buyer with the ability, choices, and planning.

The decision to suspend procurement sets a clear monetary condition, defining a new trading boundary.

It is not a short-term dispute, but an extension of a long-term strategy.

Previously, China was always passively accepting prices and settlement methods in the international commodity market.

Now, it is gradually transforming into a participant in the rules, and even has the potential to become a rulemaker.

This transformation is ongoing.

Not all countries will quickly accept RMB settlement, and not all transactions can switch currencies immediately.

But the trend is clear, and the choice is shifting.

In the future, whoever controls the settlement method will be closer to the pricing power.

For China, its vast economy and market size are solid backing, centralized procurement and institutional design are effective tools, and the internationalization of the RMB is a clear goal.

These factors are overlapping, making this procurement suspension no longer just a commercial friction, but a gentle reshaping of the global trade order.

The way iron ore is traded has changed, and who dominates the market is also quietly changing.

Not accepting RMB settlement may mean not being able to continue doing business with China; insisting on USD settlement may mean losing this biggest customer.

This is a visible game, and also an invisible shift.

The buyer is no longer just the one who pays, but can also become the one who sets the rules.

This game has just begun, and whoever adapts to the new rules will be able to stand unshakable in this transformation.

Source of Information:

In September 2025, Bloomberg was the first to report that China Minmetals Group had instructed domestic buyers to suspend procurement of all BHP iron ore priced in US dollars.

In mid-September 2025, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed "disappointment" over China's decision to suspend procurement of US dollar-priced iron ore during an interview in Canberra, and said he hoped for a swift resumption of normal trade relations.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7556645387650531894/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Up/Down] buttons.