Legal Proceedings - Additional Information (Detail)	1 Months Ended
	Oct. 31, 2013	Sep. 30, 2013	Sep. 30, 2012	Jun. 30, 2012 LegalMatter	Jun. 13, 2012	Apr. 10, 2012	Feb. 09, 2012 Defendant
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Law suit filing date					On June 13, 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 "June Harris County Lawsuit").	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”)	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").
Name of defendant			The Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista		The Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista	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 or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the Relevant Time Period	Shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011 and January 26, 2012
Number of officers named as defendants							2
Number of lawsuits				1
Suit Consolidation						In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will proceed as one lawsuit.	In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will proceed as one lawsuit.
Actions Taken by Defendant						In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the Federal Securities Lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in June 2013.	In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the Federal Securities Lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in June 2013.
Laws affected				The Federal Securities Lawsuit 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.	This lawsuit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and other duties by the defendants that generally are related to the Federal Securities Lawsuit, as well as a breach of duty by certain defendants in connection with stock sales.	The Federal Securities Lawsuit 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 Federal Securities Lawsuit 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.
Actions Taken by Defendant		In September 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a second amended complaint and sustain the lawsuit. Briefing on this motion will take place during the fourth quarter of 2013.
Settlement agreement					The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and costs, and has been further stayed while the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the Federal Securities Lawsuit is considered.
Company assessment and process	In October 2013, the Company made a voluntary disclosure to the State of Georgia Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") concerning the air emissions of its Toomsboro, Georgia manufacturing facility. Specifically, the disclosure concerns the emission of a specific substance that exceeds permitted levels under applicable regulations. The Company is continuing its dialogue with EPD, and has proposed a solution for this emission variance to EPD for consideration.
Inestimable loss	The Company has not received a Notice of Violation from EPD. Accordingly, the Company does not at this time have an estimate of any fines, penalties or other costs of compliance that may be incurred.