Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
frauds. Mineral interests are treated as real property interests and are therefore subject to the rules relating to real property, including the statute of frauds. See Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 89, 134 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997). Therefore, a lease of mineral rights for longer than one year must be in writing. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 26.01(b)(5). Thus, if the Letter Agreement here is a contract with a missing term, then it must meet the statute of frauds. If the future agreement is covered by the statute of frauds, then the agreement to make a future agreement must also meet the statute of frauds. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. C. Springs, 300, Ltd., 287 S.W.3d 771, 778 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (citing Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex.2007) ). If the Letter of Agreement is an agreement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract
B. holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds
C. holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds
D. holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated 
E. holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.