A Texas-based company said it had resumed crude oil production in nearby federal waters nearly a decade after a massive oil spill foul on the Santa Barbara Coastline and prompted several rigs to close.

To shock and anger, environmentalists and some state and local officials, Sable Offshore Corp. announced that it began extracting oil from one of three long platforms last week.

The announcement comes a month after the California Coastal Commission ordered the company to stop working and fined $18 million for failing to obtain the necessary permit and review. Sable questioned the Commission's authority and insisted that it had obtained all the necessary permissions to start work.

The development has angered environmental groups, claiming that Gavin Newsom and his administration have not done enough to help avoid future leaks.

“It is shocking that no agent has fully studied the environmental risks of restarting this aging, corroding pipeline, while the unbreakable orders are thriving on the order to stop construction.” “We will continue to work to protect sensitive habitats, species and communities that are harmed by offshore oil drilling.”

The recovery of oil production near Santa Barbara coincides with the push from the Trump administration to expand fossil fuel production and restore clean energy programs.

Sable Chairman and CEO Jim Flores said the new oil production is a "mile mark" that will help "energy security to California."

"Sable is proud to be able to securely and responsibly get its first production in the St. Inez department," Flores said in a statement Monday. "The impressive well test of the platform harmony confirms the productivity nature of the St. Inez unit reservoir after a decade of dormant."

According to the company, Harmony now extracts oil from six wells at a rate of about 6,000 barrels per day. The oil is sent to the onshore Flores Canyon processing facility and will be stored there until all operations can be restarted.

When the corrosion part of the onshore pipeline ruptured, a leak occurred in May 2015, with an estimated 140,000 gallons of crude oil emitting near Refugio State Beach.

Much of Sable's recent work has focused on repairing these pipes, which were owned and operated by another company at the time of the leak. The infrastructure still requires several unsatisfactory approvals, including testing and planning reviews. Oil production that began last week involved a separate part of its operations and has won the necessary approval, Sable officials said.

Environmentalists in Santa Barbara condemned Sable's recovery of oil production.

“No responsible company will start production until the pipeline is approved to restart,” said Linda Krop, chief consultant at the Center for Environmental Defense, which was formed after the first large-scale oil spill in 1969. She will restart for premature birth, or even attempt to put pressure on the remaining state agencies to put pressure on the remaining state agencies to get the remaining regulators first aid.

For some, the timing of the announcement is particularly shocking.

“The announcement of the second most catastrophic oil spill in Santa Barbara history is simply brutal, showing a complete disregard for residents living in oil spills and hundreds of birds and marine animals that died.” “We will continue to fight this dangerous, unwelcome pipeline until it closes forever.”

"The timing has nothing to do with the anniversary," Sable spokesman Alice Walton said in a statement, noting that crude oil began to flow four days before the exact anniversary.

While she acknowledged that some obstacles remained on land pipelines, she downplayed other legal challenges, many of which were.

"This is our position, and the lawsuit has no advantage and will not affect the project," Walton said.

Perhaps the biggest legal hurdle is the dispute between Sapur and the Coastal Commission. The company ignored the commission's request to stop work and has filed a lawsuit against the commission alleging excessive arrangements for its powers.

"The Coastal Commission is very disappointed by Sable's refusal to comply with state laws to restart offshore oil production in Santa Barbara," said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission, in a statement Monday. "Our agency continues to coordinate closely with the state attorney general to determine the appropriate next step."

If Sable successfully resumes offshore operations completely, it would mark a major reversal of California's climate policy, which over the years has gradually reduced the state's fossil fuel production in favor of clean energy. It also contrasts with the wave of environmental activism in Santa Barbara County, where residents have held multiple rallies on the Sable Project, and county leaders recently voted to find a way to phase out all oil and gas operations.

“To be clear, this happened in the Governor (Gavin) News Magazine,” a statement from Alex Katz, executive director of the Center for Environmental Defense. “At a critical moment, his administration has kept the project moving forward in the face of overwhelming local and statewide opposition. … California should lead the climate crisis, rather than promote high-risk fossil fuel projects in our own state.”

A spokesman for the governor forwarded questions about Sable's reboot efforts to the California Natural Resources Agency, which includes the California Coastal Commission, the National Fire Marshal's Office, and other key departments' oil oversight departments. CNRA spokesman Kristen MacIntyre declined to answer questions about the governor or state’s position on the Sable project, but said the agency is working with all entities involved to “evaluate the entire situation.”

She pointed to an agency document that lists eight state agencies involved in oversight of the Sable Project and its processes, although much of the information is no longer up-to-date.

Sable said it not only plans to start opening more wells on Harmony, but it will also restart the 70 wells on its other two platforms (Heritage and Hondo) in July and August. The company said it expects to fill the plant's storage capacity by mid-June by nearly 540,000 barrels and oil sales began in July. Three offshore platforms, onshore processing facilities, and onshore and offshore pipelines collectively form the Saint-Yanes unit.

But the company shared the plans with long-term warnings, part of which focused on ongoing demands from California’s watchdog agencies.

"There is no guarantee that the necessary permit will be obtained, which will allow for re-shipment of the onshore pipeline and allow the (Santa Ynez unit) assets to be re-sold," the company said.

The most important remaining approvals will be reviewed by the state's fire marshal. Lieutenant Fire Marshal Kara Garrett said “many conditions must be met before authorization to restart”.

"This includes but is not limited to repair work, the line's water and submission of the pipeline start-up plan and OSFM approval," Garrett said in a statement.

Earlier this month, the California Conservation Agency, including the Department of Geological Energy Management (CALGEM), also reminded Sable that the Las Flores processing facilities were bound by its supervision - which Sable had competed with. The letter dated May 9, said the department was awaiting the company's leak emergency and pipeline management plans and warned that economic fines could be conducted without a timely response. It is not clear whether Sable complies with the command.

Legal barriers are still possible.

The Environmental Defense Center, along with other climate-centric groups, sued the State Fire Marshal's Office when the department failed to conduct the necessary environmental review when some prior approvals for Sable's pipeline work.

Sable also sued Santa Barbara's supervisory board in an attempt to obtain the necessary permission to transfer the project to restart. The county initially moved to Sable from Exxon Mobil, the department's previous owner, but after the appeal, the supervisor stalemates over the matter, which retained Sable's license.

In another case, the Center for Biodiversity has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the rebooting approval, claiming federal officials have failed to provide updated plans for decades of infrastructure initially approved in the 1970s and 1980s.