Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings	9. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, management does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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”). 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. 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, and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the “Federal Securities Lawsuit”), which alleges substantially similar claims as the February SDNY Lawsuit and requests unspecified damages and costs. In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit. 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 shares during the Relevant Time Period. This lawsuit alleged substantially similar claims as the February SDNY Lawsuit and requested unspecified damages and costs. In June 2012, this lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. 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 “March Harris County Lawsuit”). The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and other duties by the defendants that generally are related to the February SDNY Lawsuit, and requests unspecified damages and costs. 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 Lawsuit. On June 13, 2012, the Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista were named as defendants in a second purported derivative action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Company by a stockholder in District Court in Harris County, Texas (this lawsuit collectively with the March Harris County Lawsuit, the “Harris County Lawsuits”). This lawsuit alleges substantially similar claims as the March Harris County Lawsuit as well as a breach of duty against certain defendants in connection with stock sales. This lawsuit also requests unspecified damages and costs. The parties to this lawsuit have also entered into an agreement to stay further proceedings pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Lawsuit. While each of the Federal Securities Lawsuit and the Harris County Lawsuits are in their preliminary stages, the Company does not believe they have merit, and plans to vigorously contest and defend against them. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or duration of these lawsuits.

9. Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, management does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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”). 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. 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, and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the “Federal Securities Lawsuit”), which alleges substantially similar claims as the February SDNY Lawsuit and requests unspecified damages and costs. In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit.

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 shares during the Relevant Time Period. This lawsuit alleged substantially similar claims as the February SDNY Lawsuit and requested unspecified damages and costs. In June 2012, this lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice.

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 “March Harris County Lawsuit”). The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and other duties by the defendants that generally are related to the February SDNY Lawsuit, and requests unspecified damages and costs. 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 Lawsuit.

On June 13, 2012, the Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista were named as defendants in a second purported derivative action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Company by a stockholder in District Court in Harris County, Texas (this lawsuit collectively with the March Harris County Lawsuit, the “Harris County Lawsuits”). This lawsuit alleges substantially similar claims as the March Harris County Lawsuit as well as a breach of duty against certain defendants in connection with stock sales. This lawsuit also requests unspecified damages and costs. The parties to this lawsuit have also entered into an agreement to stay further proceedings pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Lawsuit.

While each of the Federal Securities Lawsuit and the Harris County Lawsuits are in their preliminary stages, the Company does not believe they have merit, and plans to vigorously contest and defend against them.

The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or duration of these lawsuits.