Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
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. While the outcome of litigation or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, except as described below, management does not consider it reasonably possible that a loss resulting from such litigation or other proceedings, in excess of any amounts accrued or covered by insurance, has been incurred that is expected to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements. 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 Ecoserv asserting that we had breached certain representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement, including failing to disclose operational problems and service work performed on injection/disposal wells and increased barge rental costs. The letter indicated that Ecoserv expected the damages associated with these claims to exceed the escrow amount. Following a further exchange of letters, in July of 2015 we filed an action against Ecoserv in state court in Harris County, Texas, seeking release of the escrow funds. Thereafter, Ecoserv filed a counterclaim seeking recovery in excess of the escrow funds based on the alleged breach of representations and covenants in the sale agreement. Ecoserv also alleges that we committed fraud in connection with the sale transaction. Ecoserv opposed Newpark’s motion to have the case tried before the judge (without a jury) as provided for in the sale agreement and sought to have our counsel disqualified from the case. The Court ruled in our favor on both matters. Discovery in the case has provided more information about Ecoserv’s claims, which include, among other things, alleged inadequate disclosures regarding the condition of a disposal cavern (at the time of the execution of the sale agreement and again as it relates to the time period between execution of the sale agreement and closing) and the lack of appropriate reserves/accruals/provisions in the financial statements of the business relating to certain regulatory obligations (such as plug and abandonment costs for injection wells and costs associated with a solids drying facility). Ecoserv is seeking to use a damage model for most of its damages based on its calculation of the difference between (a) the value of the business at closing, and (b) the sales price ($100.0 million), and has claimed damages of approximately $20.0 million. The case had been scheduled for trial in August 2017, but was postponed until December 2017. While there can be no certainty regarding the outcome of a trial, we strongly disagree with Ecoserv’s position on its contract and fraud claims and calculation of damages. We also believe that the sale agreement both limits the amount of any recoverable damages and precludes most of the damages Ecoserv asserts for breach of the sale agreement. While it is reasonably possible that following the trial, the judge may rule against us on one or more of the claims asserted by Ecoserv, the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. As a result, we have not concluded that a loss is considered probable at this time and no liability for any such loss has been recorded. We intend to vigorously defend our position while pursuing release of the entire $8.0 million in escrow. Litigation expenses related to this matter are included in corporate office expenses in operating income.

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. While the outcome of litigation or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, except as described below, management does not consider it reasonably possible that a loss resulting from such litigation or other proceedings, in excess of any amounts accrued or covered by insurance, has been incurred that is expected to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

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 Ecoserv asserting that we had breached certain representations and warranties contained in the sale agreement, including failing to disclose operational problems and service work performed on injection/disposal wells and increased barge rental costs. The letter indicated that Ecoserv expected the damages associated with these claims to exceed the escrow amount. Following a further exchange of letters, in July of 2015 we filed an action against Ecoserv in state court in Harris County, Texas, seeking release of the escrow funds. Thereafter, Ecoserv filed a counterclaim seeking recovery in excess of the escrow funds based on the alleged breach of representations and covenants in the sale agreement. Ecoserv also alleges that we committed fraud in connection with the sale transaction. Ecoserv opposed Newpark’s motion to have the case tried before the judge (without a jury) as provided for in the sale agreement and sought to have our counsel disqualified from the case. The Court ruled in our favor on both matters. Discovery in the case has provided more information about Ecoserv’s claims, which include, among other things, alleged inadequate disclosures regarding the condition of a disposal cavern (at the time of the execution of the sale agreement and again as it relates to the time period between execution of the sale agreement and closing) and the lack of appropriate reserves/accruals/provisions in the financial statements of the business relating to certain regulatory obligations (such as plug and abandonment costs for injection wells and costs associated with a solids drying facility). Ecoserv is seeking to use a damage model for most of its damages based on its calculation of the difference between (a) the value of the business at closing, and (b) the sales price ($100.0 million), and has claimed damages of approximately $20.0 million. The case had been scheduled for trial in August 2017, but was postponed until December 2017. While there can be no certainty regarding the outcome of a trial, we strongly disagree with Ecoserv’s position on its contract and fraud claims and calculation of damages. We also believe that the sale agreement both limits the amount of any recoverable damages and precludes most of the damages Ecoserv asserts for breach of the sale agreement. While it is reasonably possible that following the trial, the judge may rule against us on one or more of the claims asserted by Ecoserv, the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. As a result, we have not concluded that a loss is considered probable at this time and no liability for any such loss has been recorded. We intend to vigorously defend our position while pursuing release of the entire $8.0 million in escrow. Litigation expenses related to this matter are included in corporate office expenses in operating income.