Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
findings or abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for partition. We note that EPIC vests the probate court with the jurisdiction to hear an equitable claim for partition. MCL 700.1303(l)(b); see, also, Van Etten, supra at 287 (observing that MCL 700.22 extended equitable jurisdiction to the probate court in limited instances, including granting the relief of partitioning property). In an action for partition, the court determines “whether the premises can be partitioned without great prejudice to the parties,” the property’s value and use, and any other matters the court finds pertinent. MCR 3.401(A). Here, none of the parties suggested a viable method to partition the property into the four equal parcels required to comply with the trust’s terms of distributio 1933) . The concerns discussed in these cases apply
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations
B. holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601
C. recognizing oil gas and coal are minerals and holding if oil gas and minerals are reserved from the grant of the surface of several tracts of unseated land  they can be taxed as an estate in land
D. recognizing as impermissible the aggregation of claims seeking to recover royalties allegedly due under oil and gas leases
E. recognizing that a metes and bounds partition when land contains oil and gas results in a serious loss to a coowner who receives a lot without oil or gas under the surface with the loss due solely to the division of the land
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.