Nonprojective Surface Let k be an algebraically closed field.  It's well known that every complete curve, period, is projective.  Also, that every smooth surface is, and that there are smooth 3-folds which are not, and people go to reasonable lengths to include these examples all over the place, so they're easy to find.  However, Hartshorne does say that singular complete surfaces are not all projective.  Is there a simple example? A complete normal surface that is not projective? Is there some "least singular" possible such surface? I suspect that normality is too much to hope for, but I can't quite phrase why I think this, so is every normal complete surface projective?
 A: A simple example of a proper non-projective surface can be found in Vakil's AG-notes:
http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/0506-216/216class4344.pdf
A: There is also an example in an Exercise from Hartshorne's Algebraic geometry involving infinitessimal extensions which I am trying to understand.
Let me recall some definitions and properties in the first place:


*

*Infinitessimal lifting property: given an algebraically closed field $k$, a finitely generated $k$-algebra $A$ with $X=\mbox{Spec } A$ non-singular, and an exact sequence $0\rightarrow \mathcal{I} \rightarrow B' \rightarrow B \rightarrow 0$, where $B,B'$ are k-agebras and $I\subset B'$ is an ideal such that $\mathcal{I}^2=0$, any k-algebra homomorphism $A\rightarrow B$ lifts to a h-algebra homomorphism $A\rightarrow B'$, and two such homomorphism differ by a k-derivation of A into $\mathcal{I}$, namely an element in $Hom_A(\Omega_{A/k},\mathcal{I})$.

*An infinitessimal extension of a k-scheme $X$ by a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ is a pair $(X',\mathcal{I})$ where $X'$ is a k-scheme and $\mathcal{I}$ is a sheaf of ideals on $X'$ with $\mathcal{I}^2=0$ and such that we have isomorphisms $(X',\mathcal{O}_{X'}/\mathcal{I})\cong (X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ (as k-schemes) and $\mathcal{I}\cong \mathcal{F}$ (as $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules). For instance, the trivial extension of $X$ by $\mathcal{F}$ is given by the pair $(X,\mathcal{F})$, where the $X$ has structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_X'=\mathcal{O}_X\oplus \mathcal{F}$ with product $(a\oplus f)\cdot (a'\oplus f')=aa'\oplus (af'+a'f)$, so that $\mathcal{F}$ becomes an ideal sheaf in $X$.

*If $X=\mbox{Spec }A$ is affine and $\mathcal{F}$ is a coherent sheaf, then any extension is isomorphic to the trivial one: we just use the previous lifting property to construct a splitting of an appropriate short exact sequence.

*There is a correspondence between isomorphism classes of infinitessimal extensions of a k-scheme $X$ by a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ and the cohomology group $H^1(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{T}_X)$ where $\mathcal{F}_X$ is the tangent sheaf of $X$. If $(X',\mathcal{I})$ is an infinitessimal extension of $X$ by $\mathcal{F}$ and and $\{U_i\}$ is an affine open cover of $X$ (so that sheaf cohomology is isomorphic to Cech cohomology) then on every open affine set the extension is trivial, namely of the form $(U_i,\mathcal{I}_{|U_i}=\mathcal{O}_{U_i}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{|U_i})$. It is easy to see from the construction of the trivialisation (choosing a lift, and noting that the difference of two lifts gives an element of $Hom_A(\Omega_{A/k},\mathcal{I})$) that this gives a cocyle in $H^1(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{T}_X)$. Conversely, given a cocyle $\xi=(\xi_{ij})\in \check{H}^1(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{T}_X)$ and an open affine cover $\{U_i\}$, on each $U_i$ we have a trvial extension $(U_i,\mathcal{F}_{|U_i|}$ with $\mathcal{O}_{|U_i}'\cong\mathcal{O}_{U_i}\oplus \mathcal{F}_{|U_i}$ and we can glue them all via $\xi=(\xi_{ij})$ to give an extension of $X$ by $\mathcal{F}$.
Then Hartshorne suggests that we perform the following computation:
let $X=P_k^2$ and consider the sheaf of differential 2-forms
$\omega_X$; then $H^1(X,\Omega_X^1)\cong H^1(X,\omega_X\otimes
\mathcal{T}_X)$ and a nontrivial extension $X'$ of $X$ by $\omega_X$
is given by the cocylce $\xi \in H^1(X,\omega_X^1)$ given over
$U_{ij}=U_i\cap U_j$ (where the $\{U_i\}$ are the standard open
subsets covering $P_k^2$) by
$\xi_{ij}=\frac{x_j}{x_i}d\left(\frac{x_i}{x_j}\right)$. This is our
target proper non-projective surface and in order to see that it is
indeed non-projective we shall prove that it has no ample invertible
sheafs (in fact no invertible sheaf at all, namely $Pic X'=0$). We
have a short exact sequence
$0\rightarrow \omega_X \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X'}^{\ast}
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X^{\ast} \rightarrow 0$ inducing a long
exact cohomology sequence $\cdots \rightarrow
\underbrace{H^1(X,\omega_X)}_0 \rightarrow
\underbrace{H^1(X',\mathcal{O}_{X'}^{\ast})}_{Pic(X')} \rightarrow
\underbrace{H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X^{\ast})}_{Pic(X)}
\stackrel{\delta}{\longrightarrow} \underbrace{H^2(X,\omega_X)}_k
\rightarrow \cdots$ 
and in order to see that $Pic X'==$ it suffices
to prove that $\delta$ is injective and nonzero. Since $Pic X\cong
\mathbb{Z}$, any invertible sheaf is of the form
$\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{O}_X(d)\cong \mathcal{O}_X(1)^{\otimes d}$ and
it suffices to see that $\delta(\mathcal{O}_X(1))\neq 0$. I am
confused as to how to carry out this computation since I guess I
still do not understand very well the correspondence between
infinitessimal extensions and the cohomology group. What I intend to
do is to compute $\delta$ explicitly in the standard way, namely via
the diagram
$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 0 & \rightarrow & \check{C}^1(U,\omega) &
\rightarrow & \check{C}^1(U,\mathcal{O}_{X'}^{\ast}) & \rightarrow &
\check{C}^1(U,\mathcal{O}_X^{\ast}) & \rightarrow & 0
\\ && \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow && \\ 0 & \rightarrow & \check{C}^2(U,\omega) &
\rightarrow & \check{C}^2(U,\mathcal{O}_{X'}^{\ast}) & \rightarrow &
\check{C}^2(U,\mathcal{O}_X^{\ast}) & \rightarrow & 0 \end{array}$
The cycle corresponding to $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ in
$\check{C}^1(U,\mathcal{O}_X^{\ast})$ is
$\left(\frac{x_1}{x_0},\frac{x_2}{x_1},\frac{x_0}{x_2}\right)$. How
does it map down to $\check{C}^2(U,\omega)$?
Thanks in advance for any insight.
A: There is a construction of a proper normal non-projective surface  here .
There is an example given by Nagata in his paper "Existence theorems for nonprojective complete algebraic varieties" in the Illinois Journal, but I don't know where this is available on the web.
Over a finite field complete + normal implies projective for surfaces.
