On the Periodic Table of Elements, the symbols Kr, Ne, He stand for krypton, neon, and helium, three of the so-called noble gases. Noble gases are chemically stable, and can be easily overlooked because they are colorless and odorless. They have boiling and melting points that are close together, meaning that they have a very narrow range of temperatures at which they are liquid. And noble gases have industrial applications in lighting, welding, and lasers.

On the New York Stock Exchange, KR, NE, and HE stand for Kroger, Noble, and Hawaiian Electric Industries. Do these companies exhibit similar characteristics of stability, a tendency to be overlooked, and scarce liquidity? Well, no analogy is perfect, especially one as arbitrary as this. But here's a look at these stocks nonetheless.

Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) is the largest traditional grocery chain in the U.S. (though Wal-Mart is the largest seller of groceries). Kroger has more than 2,400 supermarkets under several different names, as well as more than 750 convenience stores.

National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV) volatility elevated as NOV at record high on oil rally.

NOV, a worldwide provider of equipment a components used in oil and gas drilling production operations, closed at record high of $136.94. WTI Crude oil futures are down 0.03% at $78.21 a barrel according to Bloomberg. NOV overall option implied volatility of 43 is above its 26-week average of 38 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price risk.

Texas Instruments (NYSE: TXN) volatility at 30 into third quarter business outlook.

TXN closed at $35.72. ThinkEquity says that "TXN provided an in-line mid-quarter update." ThinkEquity goes on to say, "we view this as mildly disappointing given the strong environment for PCs, consumer, and high performance analog, and investor expectations for an in-line to slightly better outlook." TXN September option implied volatility of 30 is above its 26-week average of 27 according to Track Data, suggesting slightly larger price fluctuations.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

Upon occasion, earnings reports are studies in how to put lipstick on a pig. So it is refreshing, albeit confusing, to read that Enerplus Resources Fund (NYSE: ERF) senior management believes the company is "essentially meeting our expectations." By all means, don't gush. It takes a fair amount of due diligence to turn up information on this thinly covered Canadian oil and gas exploration and drilling company. Those analysts that do track the stock recommend holding if you already own, but don't sell because you never know, yet certainly don't buy.

Thus far, the only attractive feature I have found with this stock is that it pays a monthly, rather than quarterly, dividend. Other than that, the numbers are not in its favor. Net income was down somewhat, while operating costs were up slightly to Canadian $8.53 BOE (barrel of oil equivalent), as was long-term debt. Gas production was up slightly but crude oil production was down and the number of wells drilled also declined, so crude oil production is likely to stay in decline for the next few quarters. The company spent $240 million on acquisitions in both the US and the Canadian oil sands in Alberta province. The company paid Canadian $61 million for natural gas fields in Wyoming and Canadian $182.5 million for oil sands in Alberta. Capital spending is stable but high at Canadian $415 million. Like most oil and gas exploration companies, Enerplus Resources Fund is hit with increasing higher costs to acquire assets and much higher costs to get oil and gas out of the ground. Additionally, recent Canadian legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions will add over Canadian $1 per produced barrel of oil equivalent, further eating into profits. One factor in its favor is that Enerplus currently controls 443 million BOE in potential reserve, with an additional 57 million BOE in probable reserves. The Alberta oil sands have the potential to produce 60,000 BOE per day for 10 years, or about $3 billion in future development, but at what price economically and environmentally?