So, if we need to increase drilling at ever-increasing rates to minimize decline, how much of a difference will the lack of rigs make in the post-peak decline rate? Has anyone looked into this?
The problem is that the longer you delay decline (maintain output) through infilling the steeper the decline will be later.  Total production curves can be broad and flat or narrow and steep but the area under them is the same, or nearly so.  This has been dissected many times at TOD.  By "artificially" maintaining output after peak production you steepen the backside of the depletion curve for all wells.  

In aggragate the field will decline at a faster rate independant of number of wells drilled.  By not admitting that fields have peaked and having to alter demand to meet gradually reducing supply on the backside, we (society at large and the owners of Cantarell in particular) are setting ourselves up for a much, much more rapid decline in oil supply at a later date.  Working harder to extend the plateau makes the decline that much worse, when it finally can't be put off any longer.

In my mind this is the greatest danger of not accepting (as oppossed to theoretically believing in) peak oil.  Not dealing with the issue makes it worse in the long run.

Read my posting and let me know if you or someone you know have a knowledge of offshore oil rigs here in the USA.