Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

As used in this report, the terms “Valero,” “we,” “us,” or “our” may refer to Valero Energy Corporation, one or more of its consolidated subsidiaries, or all of them taken as a whole.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. On an ongoing basis, we review our estimates based on currently available information. Changes in facts and circumstances may result in revised estimates.

Effective January 1, 2012, we adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 220, “Comprehensive Income,” and have elected to present the total for comprehensive income in a statement that is separate from the statement of income but placed directly after the statement of income.

In December 2011, the provisions of ASC Topic 210, “Balance Sheet,” were amended to require an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of these arrangements on its financial position. The guidance requires entities to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the balance sheet and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master

netting arrangement. These provisions are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on January 1, 2013. The adoption of this guidance effective January 1, 2013 will not affect our financial position or results of operations, but may result in additional disclosures.

The acquired refining and marketing businesses discussed below involve the production and marketing of refined petroleum products. These acquisitions are consistent with our general business strategy and complement our existing refining and marketing network.

On October 1, 2011, we acquired the Meraux Refinery and related logistics assets from Murphy Oil Corporation for an initial payment of $586 million, which was funded from available cash. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we recorded an adjustment related to inventories acquired that reduced the purchase price to $547 million. The assets acquired and liabilities assumed in this acquisition were recognized at their acquisition-date estimated fair values, as disclosed in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and no adjustments to those estimated amounts have been made during the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2012. We are, however, awaiting the completion of an independent appraisal and other evaluations of the fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed.

On August 1, 2011, we acquired 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Chevron Limited from a subsidiary of Chevron Corporation (Chevron), and we subsequently changed the name of Chevron Limited to Valero Energy Ltd. On the acquisition date, we initially paid $1.8 billion from available cash, of which $1.1 billion was for working capital. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we recorded adjustments to working capital (primarily inventory), resulting in an adjusted purchase price of $1.7 billion. The assets acquired and liabilities assumed in this acquisition were recognized at their acquisition-date estimated fair values, as disclosed in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and no adjustments to those estimated amounts have been made during the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2012. We are, however, awaiting the completion of an independent appraisal and other evaluations of the fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. This acquisition is referred to as the Pembroke Acquisition.

In March 2012, we decided to suspendsuspended the operations of the Aruba Refinery by the endbecause of March. Our decision was based on the refinery’s inability to generate positive cash flows on a sustained basis subsequent to its restart in January 2011 and the sensitivity of its profitability to sour crude oil differentials, which narrowed significantly in the fourth quarter of 2011. We considered the use of alternative feedstocks or configuration changes that might improve the refinery’s cash flows and we also considered a temporary or permanent shutdown of the refinery facilities. We ultimately decided to shut down the refinery and to maintain it in a state that would allow for operations to be resumed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Clean Air Act). Any new construction or material expansions will require that, among other things, a greenhouse gas permit be issued at either or both the state or federal level in accordance with the Clean Air Act and regulations, and we will be required to undertake a technology review to determine appropriate controls to be implemented with the project in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The determination would be on a case by case basis, and the EPA has provided only general guidance on which controls will be required.

Furthermore, the EPA is currently developing refinery-specific greenhouse gas regulations and performance standards that are expected to impose, on new and existing operations, greenhouse gas emission limits and/or technology requirements. These control requirements may affect a wide range of refinery operations but have not yet been delineated. Any such controls, however, could result in material increased compliance costs, additional operating restrictions for our business, and an increase in the cost of the products we produce, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

In the first quarter of 2012, CARB adopted amendments to its Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) Regulation. CARB states that the CFO Regulation is intended to provide outlets of clean fuel to meet the needs of alternative fuel vehicles. We understand that CARB is preparing to submit the CFO Regulation to the State Office of Administrative Law for approval. TheUnder the regulation, projections of zero-emission vehicle availability in the California market would requiretrigger a requirement for major refiners and importers of gasoline, including Valero,us, to install clean fuel outlets at five percent of California’s retail stations for hydrogen fueling and electric vehicle charging.in designated areas in proportion to each refiner or importer’s share in the California gasoline market. We expect this regulation to be challenged, but we could be required to make significant capital expenditures if the regulation is implemented as presently adopted.

The EPA has disapproved certain permitting programs of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) that historically have streamlined the environmental permitting process in Texas. For example, the EPA disapproved the TCEQ pollution control standard permit, thus requiring conventional permitting for future pollution control equipment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the EPA’s disapproval and sent it back to the EPA to re-evaluate the decision. Litigation is pending from industry groups and others against the EPA for each of these actions. In some instances, the EPA’s decisions have been initially upheld and others are still pending before the courts. The EPA has also objected to numerous Title V permits in Texas and other states, including permits at our Port Arthur, Corpus Christi East, and McKee Refineries. Environmental activist groups have filed a notice of intent to sue the EPA, seeking to require the EPA to assume control of these permits from the TCEQ. Finally, as part of its regulation of greenhouse gases discussed above, the EPA has federalized the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions in Texas. This creates a dual permitting structure that must be navigated for material projects in Texas. All of these developments have created substantial uncertainty regarding existing and future permitting. Because of this uncertainty, we are unable to determine the costs or effects of the EPA’s actions on our permitting activity. But theThe EPA’s disruption of the Texas permitting system could result in material increased compliance costs for us, increased capital expenditures, increased operating costs, and additional operating restrictions for our business, resulting in an increase in the cost of, and decreases in the demand for, the products we produce, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

We are subject to extensive tax liabilities imposed by multiple jurisdictions, including income taxes, transactional taxes (excise/duty, sales/use, and value-added taxes), payroll taxes, franchise taxes, withholding taxes, and ad valorem taxes. New tax laws and regulations and changes in existing tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in the future. Many of these liabilities are subject to periodic audits by the respective taxing authority. Subsequent changes to our tax liabilities as a result of these audits may subject us to interest and penalties.

We are party to claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We have not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to some of these matters because we have determined that it is remote that a loss has been incurred.  For other matters, we have recorded a loss contingency liability where we have determined that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and that the loss is reasonably estimable.  These loss contingency liabilities are not material to our financial position. We re-evaluate and update our loss contingency liabilities as matters progress over time, and we believe that any changes to the recorded liabilities will not be material to our financial position or results of operations.

The noncontrolling interest relates to thea third-party ownership interest in Diamond Green Diesel Holdings LLC, that is owned by a party unrelatedcompany whose financial statements we consolidate due to us.our controlling interest.

Our anticipated contributions to our pension plans during 2012 have not changed from amounts previously disclosed in our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011. During the six months ended June 30,2012, we contributed approximately $13 million to our pension plans. There were no significant contributions made to our pension plans during the threesix months ended March 31,June 30, 2012 and 2011. In July 2012, we contributed $50 million to our pension plans.

Total assets by reportable segment were as follows (in millions):

The above changes in current assets and current liabilities differ from changes between amounts reflected in the applicable balance sheets for the respective periods for the following reasons: