Natural resources have been excluded from the consideration of political economy as a kind of "free" world constant, economically neutral background of economic activity. Ricardo argued that "nothing is paid for the inclusion of natural agents, as they are inexhaustible and available to all." It also repeats Say: "Natural resources are inexhaustible, because otherwise we would not have received their gift. Since they can not be either increased or exhausted, they do not constitute the object of economic science. " These same formulations of Marx, for example: "The forces of nature are worth nothing; they are part of the labor process, without going into the process of formation of the cost. " Repetition of this idea could go on and - it is a quite specific and precise installation, which determines the whole logic of the labor theory of value. Taking the idea of ??the Carnot cycle heat engine and built his theory of reproduction cycles, Marx, like Carnot, not included in his model of the furnace and the chimney - the part of the political and economic "machine", where the fuel is burned and the smoke and soot is formed. Then it is not required. But now, without this fundamental part of the whole model of political economy completely unusable - it was just the nature of the role is excluded from the consideration of how a negligible quantity. On coal, oil, gas began to say that they are "made" and not "recovered."