Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of conducting our business, we become involved in litigation and other claims from private party actions, as well as judicial and administrative proceedings involving governmental authorities at the federal, state and local levels. Wage and Hour Litigation During the second quarter of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Jesse Davida, a former employee, in Federal Court in Texas against Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The plaintiff sought damages and penalties for the Company’s alleged failure to properly classify its field service employees as “non-exempt” under the FLSA and pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime). The Court conditionally certified a class of plaintiffs as those working as fluid service technicians for Newpark Drilling Fluids for the prior three years. A second case was filed by Josh Christensen in the fourth quarter of 2014 in Federal Court in Texas alleging that individuals treated as independent contractors should have been classified as employees and, as such, were entitled to assert claims for alleged violations of the FLSA (similar to the claims asserted in the Davida matter). Five additional plaintiffs joined this litigation after it was filed. In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and subsequently filed individual cases for each of the original opt-in plaintiffs plus two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight independent contractor cases. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the Davida case discussed above. Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the pending wage and hour litigation cases described above. Following mediation in January 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement in April 2016 to resolve all of the pending matters, subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Court in the Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases (Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases). The settlement agreement was approved by the Davida Court on August 19, 2016. Approximately 569 current and former fluid service technician employees eligible for the settlement were notified of the pending resolution beginning on August 26, 2016 and given an opportunity to participate in the settlement. The amount paid to any eligible individual will vary based on a formula that takes into account the number of workweeks and salary for the individual during the time period covered by the settlement (which can vary based upon several factors). Any eligible individual that elects to participate in the settlement will release all wage and hour claims against the Company. As a result of the settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0 million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. The settlement fund is being administered by a third party who will make payments to eligible individuals that elect to participate in accordance with a formula incorporated into the settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, if settlement funds remain after all payments are made to eligible individuals that elect to participate in the settlement, such excess amount will be shared by the participating individuals and the Company. The amount of excess funds, if any, is not currently determinable. As of September 30, 2016, we have funded $3.0 million of the settlement amount into escrow and we expect to fund the remaining balance in the fourth quarter of 2016, subject to the conditions described above. The deadline for submitting claims or opting out was October 25, 2016, and as of that date, 367 individuals have filed claims, with no individuals opting out. The percentage of current or former fluid service technicians that have elected to participate in the settlement represents approximately 65% of the individuals receiving notice. Individuals that did not participate in the settlement may retain the right to file an individual lawsuit against the Company, subject to any defenses we may assert. We expect the distributions from the settlement escrow fund to the current and former employees to occur in the fourth quarter of 2016, along with a determination of the amount of excess funds, if any, that could be returned to the Company. Escrow Claims Related to the Sale of the Environmental Services Business Under the terms of the March 2014 sale of our previous Environmental Services business to Ecoserv, LLC (“Ecoserv”), $8.0 million of the sales price was withheld and placed in an escrow account to satisfy claims for possible breaches of representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement. For the amount withheld in escrow, $4.0 million was scheduled for release to Newpark at each of the nine-month and 18-month anniversary of the closing. In December 2014, we received a letter from counsel for Ecoserv asserting that we had breached certain representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement; including failing to disclose service work performed on injection/disposal wells and increased barge rental costs. The letter indicated that Ecoserv expected the costs associated with these claims to exceed the escrow amount. Following a further exchange of letters, in July of 2015, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Ecoserv in state court in Harris County, Texas, seeking release of the escrow funds. Thereafter, Ecoserv filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of the escrow funds based on the alleged breach of representations and warranties. Ecoserv also alleges that we committed fraud in connection with the sale transaction. We believe there is no basis in the agreement or on the facts to support the claims asserted by Ecoserv and intend to vigorously defend our position, while pursuing release of the entire $8.0 million in escrow. The litigation remains in the discovery process and is currently scheduled for trial in the first quarter of 2017.

Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of conducting our business, we become involved in litigation and other claims from private party actions, as well as judicial and administrative proceedings involving governmental authorities at the federal, state and local levels.

Wage and Hour Litigation

During the second quarter of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Jesse Davida, a former employee, in Federal Court in Texas against Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The plaintiff sought damages and penalties for the Company’s alleged failure to properly classify its field service employees as “non-exempt” under the FLSA and pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime). The Court conditionally certified a class of plaintiffs as those working as fluid service technicians for Newpark Drilling Fluids for the prior three years. A second case was filed by Josh Christensen in the fourth quarter of 2014 in Federal Court in Texas alleging that individuals treated as independent contractors should have been classified as employees and, as such, were entitled to assert claims for alleged violations of the FLSA (similar to the claims asserted in the Davida matter). Five additional plaintiffs joined this litigation after it was filed. In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and subsequently filed individual cases for each of the original opt-in plaintiffs plus two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight independent contractor cases.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the Davida case discussed above.

Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the pending wage and hour litigation cases described above. Following mediation in January 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement in April 2016 to resolve all of the pending matters, subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Court in the Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases (Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases). The settlement agreement was approved by the Davida Court on August 19, 2016. Approximately 569 current and former fluid service technician employees eligible for the settlement were notified of the pending resolution beginning on August 26, 2016 and given an opportunity to participate in the settlement. The amount paid to any eligible individual will vary based on a formula that takes into account the number of workweeks and salary for the individual during the time period covered by the settlement (which can vary based upon several factors). Any eligible individual that elects to participate in the settlement will release all wage and hour claims against the Company. As a result of the settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0 million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. The settlement fund is being administered by a third party who will make payments to eligible individuals that elect to participate in accordance with a formula incorporated into the settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, if settlement funds remain after all payments are made to eligible individuals that elect to participate in the settlement, such excess amount will be shared by the participating individuals and the Company. The amount of excess funds, if any, is not currently determinable.

As of September 30, 2016, we have funded $3.0 million of the settlement amount into escrow and we expect to fund the remaining balance in the fourth quarter of 2016, subject to the conditions described above. The deadline for submitting claims or opting out was October 25, 2016, and as of that date, 367 individuals have filed claims, with no individuals opting out. The percentage of current or former fluid service technicians that have elected to participate in the settlement represents approximately 65% of the individuals receiving notice. Individuals that did not participate in the settlement may retain the right to file an individual lawsuit against the Company, subject to any defenses we may assert. We expect the distributions from the settlement escrow fund to the current and former employees to occur in the fourth quarter of 2016, along with a determination of the amount of excess funds, if any, that could be returned to the Company.

Escrow Claims Related to the Sale of the Environmental Services Business

Under the terms of the March 2014 sale of our previous Environmental Services business to Ecoserv, LLC (“Ecoserv”), $8.0 million of the sales price was withheld and placed in an escrow account to satisfy claims for possible breaches of representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement. For the amount withheld in escrow, $4.0 million was scheduled for release to Newpark at each of the nine-month and 18-month anniversary of the closing. In December 2014, we received a letter from counsel for Ecoserv asserting that we had breached certain representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement; including failing to disclose service work performed on injection/disposal wells and increased barge rental costs. The letter indicated that Ecoserv expected the costs associated with these claims to exceed the escrow amount. Following a further exchange of letters, in July of 2015, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Ecoserv in state court in Harris County, Texas, seeking release of the escrow funds. Thereafter, Ecoserv filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of the escrow funds based on the alleged breach of representations and warranties. Ecoserv also alleges that we committed fraud in connection with the sale transaction. We believe there is no basis in the agreement or on the facts to support the claims asserted by Ecoserv and intend to vigorously defend our position, while pursuing release of the entire $8.0 million in escrow. The litigation remains in the discovery process and is currently scheduled for trial in the first quarter of 2017.