Legal Proceedings - Additional Information (Detail)	1 Months Ended
	Mar. 01, 2012	Mar. 13, 2012	Feb. 09, 2012 Defendant	Aug. 04, 2011	Apr. 19, 2012 Legal Actions Taken	Apr. 10, 2012 Legal Actions Taken
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Law suit filing date	On March 1, 2012, the Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista were named as defendants in a purported derivative action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Company by a stockholder in District Court in Harris County, Texas (the "Harris County Lawsuit").		On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011 and January 26, 2012 (the "Relevant Time Period").	On August 4, 2011, CARBO Ceramics Inc. was named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by C-E Minerals, Inc. ("C-E") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.	On April 19, 2012, a third purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was also brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s Common Stock during the Relevant Time Period (the “April SDTX Lawsuit” and collectively with the April SDNY Lawsuit and the February SDNY Lawsuit, the “Federal Securities Lawsuits”).	On April 10, 2012, a second purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the Relevant Time Period (the “April SDNY Lawsuit”).
Name of defendant	The Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista		The Company and two of its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III	CARBO Ceramics Inc.	The Company and two of its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III	The Company and two of its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III
Name of plaintiff	Stockholder in District Court in Harris County, Texas		Shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011 and January 26, 2012	C-E Minerals, Inc.	Shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the Relevant Time Period	Shareholders who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the Relevant Time Period
Laws affected	The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and other duties by the defendants that generally are related to the February SDNY Lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit requests unspecified damages and costs.		The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company’s business operations and business prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and costs.	C-E alleged that a mutual non-competition provision contained in a Raw Material Requirements Agreement between C-E and CARBO Ceramics Inc., dated June 1, 2003, was invalid under federal antitrust law and applicable state law.	The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company’s business operations and business prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and costs.	The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company’s business operations and business prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and costs.
Action taken by court		The Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of C-E.
Name of counter party		C-E Minerals, Inc.
Settlement agreement	The parties to this lawsuit have entered into an agreement to stay further proceedings pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Lawsuits.	The Company and C-E subsequently entered into a settlement agreement by which both parties agreed not to enforce the covenant against the other, and resolved the claims asserted in the lawsuit. As a result, the lawsuit has been dismissed. There was no material impact to the financial statements as a result of this lawsuit.
Number of officers named as defendants			2